LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ashok Kumar Mewari vs Union of India & Others

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 1092Decided 5 Dec 2023
Civil Appeal No. 7956 of 2023
J.K. Maheshwari · K.V. Viswanathan

Background

A Railways employee, suffering from a kidney ailment, applied in 2013 for voluntary retirement on medical grounds on the express condition that his son be given a compassionate appointment in his place, as permitted by a 2006 Railway Board circular. The Railway authorities accepted only the voluntary retirement part of his request and never acted on the compassionate-appointment condition, relying on a later 2014 circular that the employee argued did not apply to his case since his application predated it. His challenges before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court went back and forth, with the claim being rejected again even after the Supreme Court gave the Railways one more chance to reconsider it.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that when an employee makes a composite, conditional request, voluntary retirement subject to compassionate appointment of a family member, the employer cannot simply accept the beneficial half (retirement) while ignoring the condition it was tied to; it must either accept both parts together or reject the offer in its entirety, relying on its own precedent in Food Corporation of India v. Ram Kesh Yadav (2007). Since the Railways never informed the employee that his conditional offer was unacceptable and instead just retired him while denying his son's appointment, and since the later 2014 clarificatory circular could not retroactively defeat a right that arose under the 2006 circular before the clarification was issued, the rejection was unjustified. The Court set aside all the adverse orders (Tribunal, High Court, and the Railways' fresh rejection) and directed that the appellant's son be given compassionate appointment within four weeks.

Lesson Learnt

An employer cannot cherry-pick the favourable part of a conditional resignation/retirement offer while discarding the condition attached to it. It must accept the whole package or reject it outright and say so, giving the employee the chance to withdraw.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case