Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Rahul S/o. Ramnarayan Madankar (appellant No.1) and his father Ramnarayan Mahadeo Madankar (appellant No.2) versus The New India Assurance Company Limited (respondent).
  • Origin: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27425 of 2025, challenging the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench judgment dated 19.08.2023 in Writ Petition No. 5560 of 2021.
  • Background:
  • Appellant No.2 submitted a voluntary retirement on medical grounds on 22 July 2015, before turning 55, attaching a Civil Surgeon certificate dated 21 July 2015 confirming permanent incapacity.
  • The respondent‑company neither acknowledged nor acted on the application before the appellant turned 55 on 10 December 2015, nor requested a Medical Board certificate until 3 February 2016, after the age threshold had passed.
  • The company accepted the retirement on 31 May 2016 and relieved the employee on 3 June 2016.
  • The dependent (appellant No.1) filed for compassionate appointment under the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector General Insurance Companies (circular dated 12 Nov 2014, effective 1 Nov 2014). The claim remained pending and was finally rejected on 15 July 2019 on the ground that the employee retired after attaining 55 years.
  • High Court Findings: Upheld the rejection, holding that the Civil Surgeon’s certificate did not satisfy the requirement of certification by a duly appointed Medical Board and that the employee retired after age 55.
  • Supreme Court Analysis:
  • Clause 1.1 of the Scheme requires retirement on medical grounds before age 55 and certification by a duly appointed Medical Board.
  • The Court found that the employer’s delay in communicating the need for a Medical Board certificate constituted a breach of the Scheme; the employer cannot rely on its own delay to deny the claim.
  • Cited precedents (Umesh Kumar Nagpal, Bhawani Prasad Sonkar, Malaya Nanda Sethy, Kusheshwar Prasad Singh) emphasizing timely, fair administration of compassionate appointment schemes and the principle that an authority cannot profit from its own default.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment dated 19.08.2023 and the rejection communication dated 15.07.2019.
  • Directed New India Assurance Company Ltd to grant compassionate appointment to appellant No.1 under the Scheme, with the post/cadre contemplated therein.
  • If appellant No.1 exceeds the applicable upper age limit during pendency, the company must provide the necessary age relaxation.
  • The appointment order must be issued within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment; monetary benefits shall accrue from the actual date of appointment.
  • The company must release any unpaid dues to appellant No.2 within eight weeks, without interfering with the High Court’s direction on verification and payment of such dues.
  • No order as to costs; any pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Topics: Compassionate Appointment, Employment Law, Judicial Review