Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2812 (ALL)

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. BIPIN KR.

2010-09-15

K.N.PANDEY, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2010
JUDGMNET By the Court.—We have heard Shri N.P. Singh appearing for the Food Corporation of India. Shri R.C. Gupta appears for the petitioners-respondents. 2. These four Special Appeals have been filed against the judgments of learned Single Judge dated 21.7.2005, directing the Food Corporation of India to consider the case of petitioner-respondents as the dependants of employees of the Corporation for appointment on their retirement on medical ground under the relevant laws within three months. The appeals have been filed with delay of 241 days. In the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application, it is stated that the writ petition was decided in terms of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 46904 of 2000, Vijai Kumar v. Zonal Manager and others, which was not available with the Corporation. The judgment was sent by the counsel of Food Corporation of India to the Regional office on 8.9.2005, and thereafter the competent authorities in the district offices, gave approval to file special appeals. The grounds for condonation of delay are sufficient. The delay in filing the Special Appeals is condoned. The delay condonation applications are allowed and the matters were heard. 3. In Vijai Kumar v. Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, learned Single Judge heard the matters to set aside the decision taken by the Food Corporation of India rejecting the petitioner’ application for appointment on the retirement of his father Shri Darab Singh a Class IV employee, on medical grounds, under the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1971, and various circulars issued from time to time, providing that if a Class IV employee before completing the age of 57 years, and a Class III employee before completing the age of 55 years, under Regulations 23 (3) and 22(4) and also circular letters, request for retirement on medical grounds with the condition that their dependants should be given employment, the Corporation may consider the offer. Learned Single Judge in Vijai Kumar Singh’s case directed the Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment. 4. In all these four cases the orders were passed directing the Food Corporation of India to consider the cases of petitioners-respondents for appointment on the retirement of their fathers on medical grounds within the prescribed age limit. 5. Learned Single Judge in Vijai Kumar Singh’s case directed the Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment. 4. In all these four cases the orders were passed directing the Food Corporation of India to consider the cases of petitioners-respondents for appointment on the retirement of their fathers on medical grounds within the prescribed age limit. 5. We are informed by Shri R.C. Gupta appearing for petitioners respondents, that in all these four cases the Corporation had accepted the applications for appointment and had given appointment to the petitioner respondents on 1.12.2005. 6. Shri N.P. Singh appearing for the Corporation submits that in Food Corporation of India v. Nijamuddin, 2010 (3) ALJ 448, the Supreme Court has considered its earlier judgment in Food Corporation of India v. Ram Kesh Yadav and another, JT 2007 (4) SC 1, and held that under the circulars the application should be filed by the employee within the age limit for the purposes of availing the benefits for his dependant. Where the application was not conditional upon giving employment, and was made a few days after completing the required age (55 years in that case), the Corporation was not required to consider the request, and was justified in rejecting the application for appointment on medical ground. 7. In the present case, the appointments were given after the contempt petitions were filed for non-compliance of the orders passed by learned Single Judge to consider the case of petitioners-respondents for appointment. 8. Shri N.P. Singh states that under the threat of contempt the appointment orders were issued. 9. There is nothing on record to show that the appointment orders were issued and the respondents joined under any pressure or threat of contempt. The Corporation did not file the special appeals within the limitation prescribed under the Rules of the Court. It preferred special appeals only after giving appointments on 1.12.2005, in terms of the Staff Regulations and circulars. 10. The Corporation has not taken any ground that the scheme was withdrawn, or that the applications for retirement on medical ground under the scheme were made after the prescribed age, for availing the benefit of circular. Further no ground has been taken in the appeals that the retirement was not made on medical ground, and was not applied for with the condition of the employment to the dependants. 11. All the Special Appeals are dismissed. —————