Supreme Court on Conditional Voluntary Retirement and Compassionate Appointment: Ashok Kumar Mewari vs. Union of India (2023)

Date of the Judgment: December 5, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1092

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can an employer accept an employee’s voluntary retirement while rejecting the condition attached to it, specifically the request for compassionate appointment for the employee’s son? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a railway employee who sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds, contingent upon his son being given a job. This judgment clarifies the obligations of an employer when faced with a conditional voluntary retirement request. The bench comprised Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

Ashok Kumar Mewari, an employee of the Railways, applied for voluntary retirement on June 18, 2013, citing medical ailments. His application included a request that his son, Mukesh Mewari, be appointed on compassionate grounds in his place. The Divisional Railway Manager accepted the voluntary retirement request on September 12, 2013, effective from September 18, 2013, but did not address the compassionate appointment request. Dissatisfied, Mr. Mewari approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur, initially allowed Mr. Mewari’s application on February 11, 2016, directing the Railways to consider his son’s appointment based on a circular dated May 14, 2006. The High Court, in a writ petition, partially allowed the Railways’ plea on January 12, 2017, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal, stating that the Tribunal should have considered the circular dated June 14, 2006, and its clarification on November 12, 2014. On remand, the Tribunal dismissed the application on December 18, 2017, stating that Mr. Mewari was not medically decategorized as per the clarification of November 12, 2014. The review application was also dismissed on July 16, 2018. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the writ petition on November 13, 2018, upholding the Tribunal’s decision. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against this order.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of various circulars issued by the Railway Board regarding voluntary retirement and compassionate appointments. The key circulars are:

• Circular dated June 14, 2006: This circular states that if an employee is medically invalidated or decategorized and no alternative posts are available, they may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is identified or until retirement. It also provides for compassionate appointment to the dependents of partially medically decategorized staff who seek voluntary retirement, subject to certain conditions. The relevant portion of the circular states:
  
  “…compassionate ground appointment to the wife/wards/depended of partially medically de­categorized staff who seeks voluntary retirement may be given subject to the following provisions:
  
  a) The appointment will be given only in the eligible group ‘D’ categories.
  
  b) Such an appointment should only be given in case of employees who are declared partially de­categorized at a time when they have at least 5 years or more service left.”
• Circular dated November 12, 2014: This circular clarifies that a railway employee can be termed as medically de-categorized only when they have been declared unfit in their original post and medical category, but fit in a lower medical category/post.
• Letter dated March 3, 2009: This letter clarifies that compassionate appointment is not applicable in cases where an employee is unfit for a particular job but fit in the same medical category for another job.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that his application dated June 18, 2013, was a composite request for voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment for his son.
• He contended that the Railways could not accept his voluntary retirement while denying the compassionate appointment.
• He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and Another v. Ram Kesh Yadav and Another (2007) 9 SCC 531, which held that a conditional voluntary retirement application cannot be partially accepted.
• The appellant argued that the clarification issued on November 12, 2014, should not apply to his case because his request was made prior to the said clarification.
• The appellant contended that the circular dated 14.06.2006 is independent of other circulars.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Railways argued that the circular dated November 12, 2014, was merely a clarification of the circular dated June 14, 2006, and should be applied retrospectively.
• They contended that the appellant was not medically decategorized as per the clarification, as he was declared fit in his original medical category, though unfit for his post.
• The Railways relied on the letter dated March 3, 2009, which clarified that compassionate appointment is not applicable in cases where an employee is unfit for a particular job but fit in the same medical category for another job.
• The Railways argued that the request of the Appellant was subsequent to the Board letter dated 03.03.2009.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the application made by the appellant for voluntary retirement was a composite one, conditional upon the appointment of his son on compassionate grounds.
2. Whether the Railways could have accepted the voluntary retirement request while rejecting the request for compassionate appointment.
3. Whether the clarification issued on November 12, 2014, would apply to the facts of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Food Corporation of India and Another v. Ram Kesh Yadav and Another (2007) 9 SCC 531, stating that a conditional voluntary retirement application cannot be partially accepted.
• The Court held that the Circular dated June 14, 2006 is independent of the subsequent clarification of the Board’s letter dated 12.11.2014.
• The Court held that the Circular dated November 12, 2014 could not be applied retrospectively to the appellant’s case.
• The Court noted that the Letter dated March 3, 2009 was not placed before the Tribunal or the High Court and that there is no reference to this letter in the Circular of 12.11.2014.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court. The court also quashed the order dated November 10, 2023, passed by the West Central Railway, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. The court directed that compassionate appointment be given to the appellant’s son, Mukesh Mewari, within four weeks.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The composite nature of the application made by the appellant, which included the request for voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment.
• The principle that a conditional offer must be accepted or rejected in its entirety, as established in Ram Kesh Yadav.
• The fact that the appellant’s application was made prior to the issuance of the clarification circular dated November 12, 2014.
• The fact that the circular dated 14.06.2006 is independent of other circulars.

The Court emphasized that the Railways should have either accepted the composite request or rejected it entirely, and that they could not accept the voluntary retirement while denying the compassionate appointment.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• An employer cannot partially accept a conditional voluntary retirement application. If an employee seeks voluntary retirement with a condition, the employer must either accept the entire request or reject it entirely.
• Clarifications to existing rules or circulars cannot be applied retrospectively if such application adversely affects the rights of the employees.
• When an employee applies for voluntary retirement with a condition, the employer must inform the employee if the condition cannot be met, allowing the employee to withdraw their application.
• The circular dated 14.06.2006 is independent of other circulars.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the authorities to provide compassionate appointment to the appellant’s son, Mukesh Mewari, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conditional voluntary retirement application must be accepted or rejected in its entirety, and that clarifications to existing rules or circulars cannot be applied retrospectively if such application adversely affects the rights of the employees. This judgment reinforces the principle established in Ram Kesh Yadav and clarifies the rights of employees seeking voluntary retirement with conditions. There is no change in the previous position of the law but it clarifies the position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Mewari vs. Union of India clarifies that a conditional voluntary retirement application cannot be partially accepted by the employer. The court held that the Railways erred in accepting Mr. Mewari’s voluntary retirement while denying the compassionate appointment to his son. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to established legal principles and ensuring fair treatment of employees in matters of retirement and compassionate appointments. The court also clarified that clarifications to existing rules or circulars cannot be applied retrospectively if such application adversely affects the rights of the employees.