Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ashok Kumar Mewari vs Union Of India on 10 October, 2023
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari
ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5921/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-11-2018
in WP No. 25302/2018 passed by the High Court of M.P. Principal
Seat at Jabalpur)
ASHOK KUMAR MEWARI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 27370/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 10-10-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s)
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv.
Mr. Shantnu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Pratyush Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Abhijeet Pandove, Adv.
Mr. Vimla Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Durga Dutt, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The petitioner was an employee of the Railways who applied for voluntary retirement on medical ground and submitted an application on 18.06.2013 with a request to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2023.10.14 retire him voluntarily and instead of granting alternative 09:40:14 IST Reason: post, his son Mukesh Mewari who is B.Com (Pass) may be 1 SLP (C) No. 5921/2019 considered for appointment at his place. On considering the said application, by the office of Divisional Railway Manager vide communication dated 12.09.2013 informed to the petitioner that his request for voluntary retirement has been accepted by the competent authority from 18.09.2013 (Afternoon) and he be treated as retired but no order was passed on the prayer of grant of compassionate appointment to his son.
During hearing, it is urged by the petitioner that a composite prayer was made by him asking voluntary retirement and to grant compassionate appointment to his son, therefore, accepting the prayer of voluntary retirement only is not justified. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Food Corporation of India and Another v. Ram Kesh Yadav and Another (2007) 9 SCC 531. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find substance in the argument as advanced by the petitioner.
We have also perused the order passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. On perusal thereof, it appears that the clarification issued subsequently on 12.11.2014 by the Railways has been made applicable in the case of the petitioner though the request for voluntary retirement and to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner’s son was prior to the said clarification. It is seen from record that the order accepting the voluntary retirement was 2 SLP (C) No. 5921/2019 passed on 18.09.2013 prior to the said clarification.
At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways submits that the Circular dated 12.11.2014 is a clarificatory in nature, therefore, it will be applicable to the date of the main Circular but we are not impressed by the said submission, in particularly the prayer made by the petitioner in the application dated 18.06.2013 which was composite, i.e., for voluntary retirement and to grant compassionate appointment to his son. The Department accepted the prayer of voluntary retirement prior to issue of the clarification.
In view of the above, we thought it appropriate to give one chance to the respondent to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment expeditiously in view of the above observations.
We direct the authorities to do the needful within four weeks and file an affidavit on or before the next date of hearing.
List the matter on 21st November, 2023.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
3