1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CIVIL  APPEAL No.2635    OF  2009

                 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.20608  of 2006]

   FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.                      ...   Appellant(s)

                       Versus    RAJA RAM ...  Respondent(s)

O R D E R  

1 Leave granted.     

2 The appellant has questioned the judgment and final order dated 21st July,  

2006 passed by the   Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.167 of 2005, which  

was  directed  against  the  order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  in  Civil  Misc.  Writ  

Petition No.25150 of 2004,  filed by the respondent herein.

3 The  respondent,  Raja  Ram,  is  the  son  of  one  Nanku  Ram,  who  was  

working as Handling labourer in the depot of the Food Corporation of India, Agra  

Cantonment.  On 16th June, 1999, he applied to the Senior Regional Manager, Food  

Corporation of India, Regional office, Lucknow, for permission to retire on medical

2

grounds and also asking that his son, the respondent herein, be allowed to work in  

his place, as there was no other person, other than him, to look after the family in the  

light of the assurance given by him that he would take care of the applicant worker  

after his retirement.  The said application was supported by an affidavit, wherein in  

paragraph 3, the said Nanku Ram indicated as follows:

“.....(3)That the elder son of the  deponent namely Raja Ram, son of Nanku  Ram  is  married  and  he  lives  separately  from my family and me and he has nothing  to  do  with my family  and me,  rather  he  looks after his own family only and now I  do not have any relation with him now.“

4 Apart from the said paragraph, in paragraph 4, the said Nankoo Ram has  

also gone on to indicate that his wife had died earlier and his daughter was already  

married and that he had no other heir and hence, he wanted the respondent herein  

to be taken in service in his place since he would take care of the applicant and his  

family, if taken into service in his place.  The said prayer made by the late father of  

the respondent was accepted partly on 24th July, 2000, when by an Office Order, his  

prayer for being allowed to retire from service was accepted and he was relieved  

from the service of the appellant on 25th July, 2000.  However, as far as the second  

part of his prayer for appointment of his son in his place on compassionate grounds  

is concerned, the same was rejected on 2nd September, 2002.

3

5 The respondent filed the  writ petition indicated hereinbefore, against the  

said order and the same   came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by his  

judgment and order dated 14th December, 2004, with a direction   to the appellant to  

appoint the respondent   as Handling Labourer forthwith, without any delay.  The  

said order of the learned Single Judge was taken in appeal by the appellant before  

the Division Bench in the Special Appeal referred to hereinabove and the same was  

dismissed  on  21st July,  2006 by  the  Division  Bench simply  by  agreeing  with  the  

reasoning given by the learned Single Judge.

6 The present appeal has been filed against the said judgment and orders of  

the learned Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench.

7 Apart  from  the  application  and  the  affidavit  in  support  thereof,  the  

learned counsel for the appellant has also shown us the relevant Circulars containing  

the policy of the appellant regarding appointments to be made on compassionate  

grounds.  In fact, it is the Circular dated 3rd July, 1996, which is applicable in the  

facts of this case since it relates to  voluntary retirement and the extension of the  

benefit of compassionate appointment to a  dependent  without being sponsored by  

the  Employment Exchange in respect  of  departmental  workers,  who were being  

allowed to retire voluntarily on medical grounds.

4

8 It has been emphasised that the policy, as was originally promulgated on  

2nd February, 1977, provided that a dependent, being a son, daughter, widow who  

had not re-married, and even a close relative, who gives an assurance to look after  

the family  and whose family is left  in indigent circumstances needing immediate  

assistance,  there  being no  other  earning member in  the family,  would  be  given  

appointment  without  following  the  formalities  of  being  sponsored  by  the  

Employment  Exchange,  subject  to  the  availability  of  the  vacancy,  and  further  

subject to the fact that he or she is duly qualified for the post.

9 It  was submitted in the instant  case,  having regard to the submissions  

made in paragraph 3 of  the  affidavit  affirmed by Nankoo Ram, the  criteria   as  

indicated hereinabove, were not fulfilled, inasmuch as, the respondent was not living  

with the workman concerned and he was neither dependent on him.  Apart from the  

above, it was also indicated in the said paragraph that he was living separately with  

his wife and children and he was looking after them.  The only reason for asking that  

he be appointed is the assurance given that in case he was given appointment, he  

would look after the applicant worker, who was retiring on medical grounds.

10 On  behalf  of  the  respondent,  it  was  submitted  that  the  essence  of  

compassionate  appointments  was  whether  the  family  was  left  in  indigent  

circumstances  needing immediate assistance,  and there was nothing on record to

5

indicate  that  they  were  not,  and  in  such  circumstances,  the  circular  had  been  

correctly interpreted by the learned Single Judge and he had very rightly directed  

that   appointment be given to the respondent on compassionate grounds.

11 Learned  counsel  also  relied  on  a  decision  of  this  Court  in  Food  

Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Ram Kesh Yadav & Anr., [2007(9)SCC 531], where  

in a similar situation, this Court had directed that appointment be given on account  

of the fact that the workman had expressed his desire to go on retirement on medical  

grounds, if his son would be provided an employment in his place.

12 This Court held that  the offer being conditional, it was not open to  the  

Food Corporation of India to accept one part of the offer and to reject the other.

13 Having  considered  the  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  respective  

parties,  we are unable  to  sustain the order  passed by the Division Bench,  which  

endorses the order of the learned Single Judge,   on the ground that the family of the  

concerned worker,  namely,  his  wife,  had predeceased him and his  daughter  was  

married and was no longer dependant on him.  Furthermore, the son, who is the  

respondent herein, was living separately and the affidavit affirmed by the worker  

indicates  that  he was living separately  with his  nuclear  family  and looking after  

them.  Furthermore,  the workman having died on 17th February,  2001, while  his

6

application was being processed, the necessity of such appointment ceased to exist  

after his death as there was no other family member available who was dependant  

on him.  The decision cited by learned counsel in Food Corporation of India Vs. Ram  

Kesh Yadav (supra) is distinguishable on facts since the workers' retirement was not  

conditional upon appointment of his son Raja Ram, the respondent herein.

14 Appointment  on  compassionate  grounds  in  deviation  from  the  normal  

rules of recruitment was conceived with the object of providing immediate financial  

relief  to  the  dependants  of  a  person  who  dies  during  his  employment.   It  was  

intended to be a beneficial measure and not a means of obtaining employment as a  

matter of course by avoiding the rules of recruitment applicable to others.  In this  

case, the very reason for giving such employment did not exist  when the learned  

Single Judge made his order on 14/12/2004.  In fact, the learned Single Judge did not  

even  consider  this  aspect  of  the  matter  despite  recording  the  fact  that  the  

respondent's father had died on 17th February, 2001.  Even the Division Bench which  

dismissed the Special Appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India did not consider  

whether the reason for making an appointment on compassionate grounds actually  

existed.

15 In  such  circumstances,  we  allow  the  appeal  and  set  aside  the  orders

7

passed by the Division Bench and the  learned Single Judge, without any order as to  

costs.

             ...................J.                                 (ALTAMAS KABIR)   

             ...................J.                          (CYRIAC JOSEPH)        

New Delhi, April 17, 2009.