# / v. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1206
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-09-19
- **Bench:** S.Rafat Alam, Vikram Nath
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/v-the-district-manager-food-corporation-of-india-and-another-40766
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art
226Compassionate
appointment-Food
Corporation of India- by eivender Dt.
2.2.77 as modified on 3.7.96- provides
voluntary retirement of those workers
within the age limit of 55 years-and to
give
appointment
on
compassionate
ground to one of the dependent of such
worker-by impugned order the request
for voluntary retirement accepted but
compassionate
appointment
turned
down- held -on technical ground such
claim can not be rejected.

Held: Para 4

We are of the view that once the
respondents have accepted the request
for retirement of the employee under the
aforesaid scheme on medical grounds
then they are obliged to consider the
claim of giving appointment to the
dependent of such employee/worker and
his request cannot be turned down on
some technical ground. That apart the
controversy
being
covered
by
the
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court, this special appeal also deserves
to be allowed.
Case law discussed:
Special Appeal No. 579 of 05 Decided on
11.5.05-relied on.

## Text

1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
that the permit stands transferred in the
name of the present applicant.

4. After taking the entire matter into
consideration, I come to the conclusion
that the order of the Magistrate dated
1.7.2005 can not be left to stand. No good
reason has been assigned for refusing the
prayer for release of the bus. Accordingly,
the order dated 1.7.2005 is quashed. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi is
directed to release the bus within a period
of one week from the date; a certified
copy of this order is produced before him
after taking adequate guarantee/ security
of the bus from the applicant Rajiv
Agarwal.

5. For the reasons discussed above,
this application is finally allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH, J.

Special Appeal No. 615 Of 2005

Ram Kesh Yadav and another

...Appellants/Petitioners
Versus
The District Manager, Food Corporation
of India and another
...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.C. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Gupta

Constitution
of
India
Art
226Compassionate
appointment-Food
Corporation of India- by eivender Dt.
2.2.77 as modified on 3.7.96- provides
voluntary retirement of those workers
within the age limit of 55 years-and to
give
appointment
on
compassionate
ground to one of the dependent of such
worker-by impugned order the request
for voluntary retirement accepted but
compassionate
appointment
turned
down- held -on technical ground such
claim can not be rejected.

Held: Para 4

We are of the view that once the
respondents have accepted the request
for retirement of the employee under the
aforesaid scheme on medical grounds
then they are obliged to consider the
claim of giving appointment to the
dependent of such employee/worker and
his request cannot be turned down on
some technical ground. That apart the
controversy
being
covered
by
the
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court, this special appeal also deserves
to be allowed.
Case law discussed:
Special Appeal No. 579 of 05 Decided on
11.5.05-relied on.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.)

1. This appeal arises from the order
of the learned Single Judge dated
29.03.2005 dismissing the writ petition of
the appellant.

2. We have heard Sri R.C. Gupta,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondents.

3. The short facts giving rise to this
appeal is that the father of the appellant
no. 1 who is also the appellant no. 2 was
working as handling labour in the office
of Food Storage Depot at Azamgarh
under the Food Corporation of India. The
Food Corporation of India issued a
circular dated 02.02.1977. It was modified
by circular dated 03.07.1996. The said
4 All] Ram Kesh Yadav and another V. The District Manager, F.C.I. and another
1207
circular provide that the worker who seek
voluntary retirement on medical grounds
and apply within the age limit of 55 years
may avail the benefit of appoint of a
dependant on compassionate ground. The
appellant no: 2 who was admittedly
working as handling labour in view of his
bad health applied for giving premature
retirement
and
also
providing
appointment to his son appellant no. 1 as
per aforesaid circular. The respondents
though accepted the request of retirement
and accordingly retired the appellant no. 2
on attaining the age of 55 years but
declined to provide appointment to
appellant no. 1 on the ground that the
application has been moved beyond the
specified period and was delayed by 2
months 20 days. Learned counsel for the
appellant vehemently contended that once
the request of the employee in terms of
the circular dated 03.07.1996 is accepted
and the order of retirement was passed it
was incumbent on the respondents to
provide appointment simultaneously to
the son of such retired employee. He
further placed reliance on the Division
Bench Judgment of this Court in a similar
case being Special Appeal No. 579 of
2005 Nizammuddin & another vs. The
District Manager, Food Corporation of
India, Kanpur Nagar & another,
decided on 11.05.2005 wherein the
direction was issued to give appointment
to the appellant therein within the 7 days
from the date of service of copy of the
order on the respondents or in any event
within three weeks from the date of the
order.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent fairly admitted that the facts of
controversy involved in both the appeal
are identical. It was however contended
that the application was moved after two
months 20 days and, therefore, the request
was not accepted. The circular dated
03.07.1997 which is annexed as Annexure
1 to the affidavit filed in support of the
appeal inter alia provides that the benefit
of the compassionate ground appointment
shall be extended to the dependant of the
departmental workers who seek voluntary
retirement on the medical ground on their
own request subject to the conditions
contained in the procedure of circular of
clauses (i) to (ix). It is not dispute before
us that the appellant no. 2 is in the
employment of the respondents and
admittedly his request under the aforesaid
circular was giving voluntary retirement
on medical grounds accepted. It is also
not dispute that his son appellant no. 1 has
claimed appointment under the same
circular. We are of the view that once the
respondents have accepted the request for
retirement of the employee under the
aforesaid scheme on medical grounds
then they are obliged to consider the
claim of giving appointment to the
dependent of such employee/worker and
his request cannot be turned down on
some technical ground. That apart the
controversy being covered by the
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court, this special appeal also deserves to
be allowed.

5. The special appeal is allowed.
The order of the learned Single Judge is
accordingly set aside and the writ petition
is also allowed. We accordingly direct the
respondents to provide employment to the
appellant no. 1 within a week from the
date of production of certified copy of this
order, provided the appellant no. 1 fulfills
all the formalities as required under the
circulars.
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
6. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11822
of 2005

Ravi Kant Sharma ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajeev Sisodia

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Dinesh Kumar
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure Section-439Bail Application-offence-under Section
498-A/323/506
I.P.C.-demand
of
Rs.50,000/- and for Motor cycle Pulser
and some ornaments-prosecution story
fully corroborated by medical evidence-7
injuries on neck, cruelty committed by
the applicant-tried commit the murder of
injured by hanging-duly supported by
presence
of
injuries-considering
the
gravity of offence applicant deserves no
sympathy-held-not
entitled
to
be
released on bail.
Held: Para 6

In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the submissions made by the
counsel
for
the
applicant,
learned
counsel for the complainant and the
learned A.G.A., and after considering the
medical
examination
report
of
the
injured, it appears that athe prosecution
story is fully corroborated by the medical
evidence because the injured, the wife of
the
applicant
was
badly
beaten
consequently, she received 7 injuries,
the applicant being the husband is under
legal/social obligation to maintain her
wife in cool and calm atmosphere but in
the present case it is not happened, and
the cruelty has been committed by the
applicant and others, even they tried to
commit the murder of the injured by way
of hanging which is supported by the
presence of the injuries on the neck, the
gravity of the offence is too much,
therefore, the applicant does not deserve
for any sympathy and is not entitled to
be released on bail.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh
Kumar, counsel for the complainant and
the learned A.G.A.

2. The applicant has applied for bail
in Case Crime No.245-C of 2005, P.S.
Kotwali Dehat District Bijnor.

3. From the perusal of the record, it
reveals that the applicant is the husband
of the injured Smt. Pallavi, whose
marriage was solemnized with her on
25.11.2003. The injured was subjected to
cruelty by the applicant and other coaccused persons with a view of fulfil the
demand of Pulser Motor cycle and
Rs.50,000/-and there was a demand of
some ornament of gold for the Jethani of
the injured. The injured conveyed all
these things to her father. The first
informant and other persons tried to
persuade the in-laws of the injured by
they were not satisfied. The injured was
subjected to cruelty continuously. The
injured had written some letters to her
father mentioning therein that she was
subjected to cruelty to fulfil the demand
of dowry. Thereafter on 8.4.2005, when
the applicant and other persons told that
the demand of dowry will not be fulfilled,