# Khushi Lal And others v. F.C.I. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 234
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-02-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3385 of 2007
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khushi-lal-and-others-v-f-c-i-and-others-41850
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri S.P. Srivastava
Sri R.K. Singh
S.C.

F.C.I.
(Staff)
Regulation,
1971Regulation-22-A-Voluntary
Retirementaccepted but the claim of appointment of
his son refused-considering Nizamuddin
Case application can not be treated
conditional one-similar order based on
wrong assumptions-can not be basis for
claiming right of equity-two wrongs will
not
make
one
right-held-claim
of
appointment rightly declined.

Held: Para 9

Suffice it it mention here that application
to provide appointment as a result of
acceptance of retirement is available
only when application is conditional and
not otherwise. Merely because in some
other matter some error or illegality has
been committed by respondents that will
not give a cause of action to petitioners
to claim parity in the matter of such
illegality. If some benefit has been given
by the respondents to some persons
illegally or contrary to the law, no
mandamus
can
be
issued
to
the
respondents to commit same illegality
again, inasmuch as, the right of equality
is not extended to claim parity in illegal
acts since it is well settled legal position
that two wrongs will not make one right.
Case law discussed:
2010 (2) UPLBEC 909; Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 34434 of 2007, Mohit Kumar and another
Vs. Senior Regional Manager and another; AIR
2000 SC 2306; AIR 2003 SC 3983; AIR 2004
SC 2303; AIR 2005 SC 565; AIR 2006 SC 1142

## Text

234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3385 of 2007

Khushi Lal And others ...Petitioners
Versus
F.C.I. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh
Sri D.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Srivastava
Sri R.K. Singh
S.C.

F.C.I.
(Staff)
Regulation,
1971Regulation-22-A-Voluntary
Retirementaccepted but the claim of appointment of
his son refused-considering Nizamuddin
Case application can not be treated
conditional one-similar order based on
wrong assumptions-can not be basis for
claiming right of equity-two wrongs will
not
make
one
right-held-claim
of
appointment rightly declined.

Held: Para 9

Suffice it it mention here that application
to provide appointment as a result of
acceptance of retirement is available
only when application is conditional and
not otherwise. Merely because in some
other matter some error or illegality has
been committed by respondents that will
not give a cause of action to petitioners
to claim parity in the matter of such
illegality. If some benefit has been given
by the respondents to some persons
illegally or contrary to the law, no
mandamus
can
be
issued
to
the
respondents to commit same illegality
again, inasmuch as, the right of equality
is not extended to claim parity in illegal
acts since it is well settled legal position
that two wrongs will not make one right.
Case law discussed:
2010 (2) UPLBEC 909; Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 34434 of 2007, Mohit Kumar and another
Vs. Senior Regional Manager and another; AIR
2000 SC 2306; AIR 2003 SC 3983; AIR 2004
SC 2303; AIR 2005 SC 565; AIR 2006 SC 1142

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. )

1. Heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned
Standing Counsel as well as Sri R.K. Singh,
Advocate for the respondents.

2. The petitioner no. 1 has sought
voluntary retirement and appointment for
his son (petitioner no. 2) by application
dated 08.08.2001 in the light of the
Standing Order contained in Regulation 22A of FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971 stating
that since he is not well the authorities may
accept his retirement and give appointment
to his son. The respondents have accepted
retirement of petitioner no. 1 on medical
ground and declined to give appointment to
his son. Hence this petition.

3. Placing reliance on a Division
Bench decision of this Court in Ram Gopal
and another Vs. Union of India and
others, 2006(3) UPLBEC 2268 learned
counsel for petitioner contended that it was
incumbent upon the respondents to provide
appointment to petitioner no. 2.

4. However, this Court find that the
matter was examined by the Apex Court in
Food Corporation of India and another
Vs. Ram Kesh Yadav and another, JT
2007(4) SC 1 wherein the Apex Court has
observed if the letter sent by employee
concerned seeking retirement on medical
ground is conditional and if the employer
has accepted the same then it is incumbent
1 All] Khushi Lal and others V. F.C.I. and others
235
upon the employer to give appointment. It is
not the case that the application submitted
by petitioner no. 1 is conditional one. The
application reads as under:

"Sir,

With due respect I beg to inform you
that as per the standing instruction under
Regulation
22(A)
of
FCI
(Staff)
Regulations, 1971, I am seeking my
retirement w.e.f. 30th November, 2001 since
at present I am medically unfit to perform
my official duties. The medical certificate
issued by the CMO, Kanpur in form No. 23
under Rule 38(3) is also enclosed herewith
for your further necessary action at your
end.

In this connection your goodself is also
requested to accept my retirement w.e.f.
30.11.2001 and in my place my son may
kindly be appointed on compassionate
grounds. His particulars area s under:-

1.Name : Naresh Babu

2.Date of Birth : 15.07.1973

3.Qualification : M.A. (Final) 1996
(Sociology)

You
are
therefore
very
kindly
requested to look into the matter personally
and do the needful at you earliest by
accepting my retirement w.e.f. 30.11.2001
and appointment of my son Naresh Babu.

Thanking you for this act of kindness."

5. I need not go in detail in order to
find out whether this application of
petitioner no. 1 can be construed as
conditional or not for the reason that a
similar application having already been
considered by Apex Court in Food
Corporation of India and another Vs.
Nizamuddin
and
another,
2010(2)
UPLBEC 909 wherein considering a
similar application the Apex Court held that
it is not a conditional one. Para 10 of the
judgment reads as under:

"10. In this case the offer of voluntary
appointment in the application was neither
conditional nor interlinked. The words used
are
"I
therefore
request
that
the
management may kindly retire me on
medical grounds and at the same time give
appointment to my son." It merely contains
two requests (that is permission to retire
voluntarily on medical grounds and request
for appointment for his son), without any
interlinking.
Nor
was
the
voluntary
retirement
conditional
upon
giving
employment to his son. Therefore, Ramkesh
Yadav will not apply. Each request had to
be considered on its own merits with
reference to the rules/scheme applicable.
When so done it is clear that the first
respondent
will
not
be
entitled
to
compassionate appointment."

6. I have also considered a similar
matter in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
34434 of 2007, Mohit Kumar and
another Vs. Senior Regional Manager
and another, decided on 05.01.2011.

7. In view of above the application of
petitioner no. 1 since cannot be held to be a
conditional one, it cannot be said that since
petitioner's no. 1 retirement on medical
ground has been accepted, it is incumbent
upon the authorities to provide appointment
to his son, i.e., petitioner no. 2.

8. Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners further referring to para 23
and 24 of the writ petition submitted that in
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
similar
circumstances,
where
similar
applications
were
submitted,
the
respondents have given appointment to the
wards of retiring employees but the said
treatment has been denied to petitioners.

9. Suffice it mention here that
application to provide appointment as a
result of acceptance of retirement is
available
only
when
application
is
conditional and not otherwise. Merely
because in some other matter some error or
illegality
has
been
committed
by
respondents that will not give a cause of
action to petitioners to claim parity in the
matter of such illegality. If some benefit has
been given by the respondents to some
persons illegally or contrary to the law, no
mandamus can be issued to the respondents
to commit same illegality again, inasmuch
as, the right of equality is not extended to
claim parity in illegal acts since it is well
settled legal position that two wrongs will
not make one right. The Apex Court in the
case of State of Bihar and others Vs.
Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another,
AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India and
another Vs. International Trading Co.
and another, AIR 2003 SC 3983; Lalit
Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh and
others, AIR 2004 SC 2303; M/s Anand
Buttons Ltd. etc. Vs. State of Haryana
and others, AIR 2005 SC 565; and
Kastha Niwarak G. S. S. Maryadit,
Indore
Vs.
President,
Indore
Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC
1142 has clearly held that Article 14 has no
application in such cases.

10. In view of aforesaid discussion, I
find no merit in this petition. It is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48485 of 2000

Narendra Pratap Singh and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P. Lkw and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Atma Ram Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Lekhpal
Service
Rule
1956-Rule-6Petitioner-based his claim on estopple
and
acquiescence-once
admitted
by
Training School can not be deprived from
completing the same-on Query made by
court regarding working of 100 days as
untrained Lekhpal-No proper response
given-voluminous documents placed in
counter
affidavit-proved
that
never
worked as untrained Lekhpal-claim not
based
upon
statutory
provisions
or
Government Order-can not be acceptedJudgment
relied
by
petitionerdistinguishable.

Held: Para 8

This Court has no hesitation to hold that
in the facts of the case it was established
beyond doubt that the petitioners were
not eligible for admission to the Lekhpal
Training
Institute
either
under
the
statutory rules or under the Government
Order dated 15.01.1986. The admission
to the Lekhpal Training Institute was
obtained by the petitioners on incorrect
statement
of
facts.
Therefore,
any
training obtained by the petitioners on
such false statement of fact cannot be
perpetuated by this Court by issuing a