FACTS:

The appellant, Food Corporation of India (for short “FCI”), introduced a scheme for granting
compassionate appointment to dependants of departmental workers, who died while in service or
who were retired by FCI on medical grounds, vide circular dated 2-2-1977. By a subsequent circular
dated 3-7-1996, the said benefit of compassionate appointment was extended to dependants of
departmental workers who sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds at their own request,
subject to the conditions stipulated in the said circular. The conditions, in brief, are: The worker
should seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds before completing the age of 55 years. The
second respondent made a composite application dated 26-4-1999 seeking compassionate
appointment to his son (the first respondent) on his voluntary retirement on medical grounds, stating
thus: “Sub.: Appointment of my son Shri Ram Kesh in consideration of my retirement on medical
ground….The Regional Office rejected the said request for compassionate appointment on the
ground that the second respondent was aged 55 years and odd as on the date of his application as
against the maximum age of 55 years prescribed under the scheme. Consequently, the writ petition
was rejected. The said order is challenged by FCI in this appeal by special leave.

ISSUES:
 Can FCI, after accepting and acting on the offer from the second respondent, refuse to fulfill the
conditions attached to the offer?
 Whether the second respondent is entitled to compassionate appointment for his son under the
scheme, despite seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds after attaining the age of 55 years?

RATIO/RULES:
 FCI cannot act on the offer and refuse to accept the conditions of the offer.
 Because FCI had already accepted the conditional offer, they were obligated to provide the
appointment.
APLICATION/ANALYSIS:
The court emphasized that voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment are separate issues.
Voluntary retirement has to be applied for first, and only then can an application for compassionate
appointment be made. Even if all conditions are met, compassionate appointment isn't guaranteed;
it's still up to the competent authority to decide based on circumstances and availability of vacancies.
Therefore, the High Court's observation about inconsistent stands was considered wrong by the
court.
When someone makes a conditional offer, the person receiving the offer has a few options: they can
accept the offer with the condition, reject the offer altogether, or propose a different offer. What they
can't do is accept only part of the offer and ignore the condition.
The court pointed out that under the scheme, FCI had the discretion to deny compassionate
appointment even if all conditions were met. However, once FCI accepted the conditional offer, they
couldn't go back on their decision. The court also found that FCI didn't contest the eligibility of the
retired employee's son for the job, nor did they claim there were no vacancies. So, the court upheld
the High Court's decision to appoint the son.
The argument raised by the appellant (the party appealing the decision) was that since the employee
stated in his application that he was medically unfit to continue working and provided a medical
 certificate to support this claim, FCI's decision to accept his request for retirement on medical
grounds should not be considered wrong. However, the court disagreed with this argument. The court
explained that if the employee's request for retirement had been unconditional (meaning there were
no conditions attached), then the appellant's argument would make sense. The court clarified that an
employee has the right to continue working until they reach the normal retirement age, even if they
have some health issues. The employer can only compel them to retire early based on medical
grounds after assessing their condition through a medical board. The court pointed out the distinction
between voluntary retirement on medical grounds and compulsory retirement on medical grounds.
The former is a choice made by the employee, while the latter is enforced by the employer based on
medical assessment. Additionally, the court noted that the scheme initially provided for
compassionate appointments only when an employee was compulsorily retired by the employer due
to medical reasons. However, this was expanded later to include compassionate appointments for
employees who voluntarily retired on medical grounds.
CONCLUSION:
Dismissed the appeal of FCI on the peculiar facts of the case.
Held, employer cannot be directed by court to give compassionate appointment contrary to the
scheme - Hence court cannot relax any condition and hold it directory However, on the peculiar facts
of this case, where an employee made a conditional offer to retire on medical grounds subject to the
condition that his son was appointed in his place, and the employer had accepted the condition in its
entirety, compassionate appointment directed to be given to retired employee's dependent.

In the context of the second respondent's conditional offer of voluntary retirement contained in the
letter dated 26-4-1999, FCI had, therefore, the following options:
(a) Reject the request for voluntary retirement on the ground that a conditional offer was contrary to
the scheme and it was not willing to consider any conditional offer.
(b) Reject the request for compassionate appointment on the ground that the employee was more
than 55 years of age or on the ground that it was not a deserving case or because there was no
vacancy, and then refer the employee to a Medical Board for compulsory retirement on medical
grounds.
(c) Require the employee to make separate applications for voluntary retirement on medical grounds
and for compassionate appointment strictly as per rules and the scheme.
(d) Accept the request of the employee for voluntary retirement on medical grounds subject to the
condition stipulated by the employee and provide appointment to his son on compassionate grounds.

But neither the retired employee nor his son will, however, be entitled to claim any monetary or other
benefits on the ground of delay in issuing the offer of appointment. The appellant is given two
months' time from today to appoint the first respondent as per the High Court's order. Parties to bear
their respective costs.