High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vijay Kumar v. Zonal Manager (N) Food Corp. Of India & Others - WRIT - A No. 46904 of 2000  RD-AH 1766 (20 December 2004)
W.P. No. 46904 of 2000.
Vijay Kumar Petitioner.
Zonal Manager (N),
Food Corporation of India
Limited and others . Respondents.
Hon. Vikram Nath,J.
This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.06.2000 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Lucknow, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Further relief claimed is that direction be issued to the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis.
The petitioner's father Sri Darab Singh was a class IV employee of the Food Corporation of India and his service were governed by the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations 1971 (herein after referred to as 1971 Regulations) and the various circulars issued from time to time by the Food Corporation of India. It is also admitted case that the age of superannuation of class IV employees was 60 years whereas in respect of class I, II & III, employees the age of superannuation was 58 years. The Food Corporation of India vide circular No. 29 of 1990 dated 20 August 1990 provided for giving appointment on compassionate basis to a son/daughter of employees of the Food Corporation of India who sought retirement on medical grounds subject to the condition that in case of a employee of category I, II & III the age of retirement on medical grounds should be before reaching the age of 55 years and in case of class IV employee the retirement on medical ground should be before reaching the age of 57 years.
In the present case Sri Darab Singh was given retirement on medical grounds at the age of 56 years 11 months and was granted premature retirement w.e.f. 29.11.1997. This fact is not disputed by the respondent however, when the petitioner applied for appointment on compensation ground that the father had taken retirement on medical ground and he was entitled to be considered in view of the regulation 22(3 & (4) of the 1971 Regulations, his claim was rejected on the ground that his father had not taken retirement at less then 55 years and was, therefore, not entitled for benefit of regulations 22(3) & (4) of the 1971 Regulations. The petition was filed for quashing of the order dated 1.6.2000 by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, only on the ground that the respondent had applied wrong age of retirement in the case of petitioner's father, which should have been 57 years but respondent have applied it as 55 years.
This writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.9.2003 against which the petitioner filed Special Appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 4.8.2004 and the matter was remanded to the Single Judge to re-consider and decide the petition afresh.
I have heard Sri R. C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Food Corporation of India.
Having examined the provisions of regulation 23(3) and 22(4) of the 1971 Regulations and also the Circular No. 29 of 1990 dated 20.8.1990 it is clear that a class IV employee taking retirement of medical grounds the cut off age was 57 years for giving appointment to the son/ daughter of the employee. The respondent has wrongly applied the cut off age as 55 years in the case of the petitioner's father. It is not disputed in the counter affidavit that the father of the petitioner took retirement on the medical ground and at an age which was less than 57 years. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled for being considered and given appointment of compassionate ground if, other conditions applicable were fulfilled. The rejection of the claim applying the incorrect age cannot be sustained.
In view of the same, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.6.2000 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds under the relevant provisions referred to above.
Since the application of the petitioner is pending since 1998 the respondents are directed to take a decision within 3 months from the date of certified copy of the order.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.