AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
[Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member(A)]
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
MA No. 271/2026, filed by the two applicants seeking permission to pursue the matter jointly, is allowed. Since the applicants seek relief arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances and the reliefs claimed are interconnected and common in nature, the applicants are permitted to prosecute the Original Application jointly.
By way of the present Original Application, the applicants have sought, inter alia, the following reliefs:
“(i)To set aside and quash the impugned order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure-1), whereby the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected in an arbitrary, mechanical and discriminatory manner;
(ii)To direct the respondents to reconsider the case of applicant no. 2, being the widow of the deceased legitimate son of the deceased employee, for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased son, namely, Late Vinay Kumar Vishwakarma, in accordance with the object and spirit of the compassionate appointment policy; and
(iii)To pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
The principal grievance of the applicants is against the rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. In particular, applicant no. 2 seeks reconsideration of her claim in view of the death of her husband, Late Vinay Kumar Vishwakarma, who had himself pursued the claim for compassionate appointment.
I have carefully perused the impugned order dated 06.10.2023, placed at page 19 of the Original Application as Annexure-1. The relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the said order reads as under:
“In terms of Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)II/91/RC-1/136 dated 02.01.1992, applicable at material time, appointment on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the administration has permitted the second marriage in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law etc.
In terms of the above directives, the competent authority did not find the case fit for appointment of Sri Vinay Kumar Vishwakarma, second son from 2nd wife of late Ramautar Sharma on compassionate ground. Accordingly, 1st wife of deceased employee, i.e. Smt. Basmati Devi was informed vide this letter No. DSC-37/CI-III/Misc/05/15 dated 15.07.2016.”
It is thus apparent that the claim was rejected primarily by placing reliance upon the Railway Board's letter dated 02.01.1992. However, this Tribunal takes judicial notice of the fact that RBE No. 42/2018 dated 21.03.2018 was subsequently issued by the Railway Board, whereby the aforesaid instructions dated 02.01.1992 stood superseded. Consequently, the very basis on which the claim was rejected requires reconsideration in the light of the instructions which were applicable on the date of such reconsideration.
There is another significant aspect of the matter. It appears from the record that one of the claimants, namely, Shri V.K. Vishwakarma, had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 882/2018. The subsequent consideration of his claim also refers to RBE No. 70/2014, under which the following members of the family were recognized as eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds:
Spouse(wife/husband);
Any child, whether son or daughter (unmarried/married/divorced), subject to the condition that the concerned child shall be the breadwinner of the family concerned.
In view of the subsequent issuance of RBE No. 42/2018, the earlier instructions relied upon by the respondents cannot, by themselves, constitute a valid and subsisting basis for rejecting the claim without examining the matter under the applicable rules/instructions presently governing compassionate appointment.
The impugned order, therefore, suffers from a material infirmity inasmuch as the claim has been examined with reference to instructions which had already been superseded. A decision founded upon an instruction which is no longer operative cannot be sustained without a fresh examination of the claim under the extant rules and instructions.
At the same time, it is made clear that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and the applicant is required to satisfy the eligibility conditions and other requirements prescribed under the applicable rules/policy. This Tribunal, while examining the legality of the decision-making process, is not required at this stage to determine the entitlement of applicant no. 2 on merits.
In the circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, this Original Application can appropriately be disposed of by directing the competent authority to reconsider the claim of applicant no. 2 in accordance with the extant rules, Railway Board instructions, policy and procedure governing compassionate appointment, including the effect and applicability of RBE No. 42/2018 and any subsequent instructions applicable to the case.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised no objection to such course of action. It is also submitted that the principles of natural justice would be duly complied with if the claim is reconsidered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:
The respondents/competent authority shall reconsider the claim of applicant no. 2 for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the extant rules, Railway Board instructions, policy and procedure applicable to the case;
While undertaking such reconsideration, the respondents shall take into consideration the subsequent instructions issued by the Railway Board, including RBE No. 42/2018 dated 21.03.2018, and shall not reject the claim merely on the basis of the superseded instructions dated 02.01.1992;
The competent authority shall afford due consideration to all relevant facts and documents placed by the applicant and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the claim of applicant no. 2 on its own merits and in accordance with law;
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order before the competent authority; and
The decision so taken shall be communicated to applicant no. 2 forthwith thereafter.
It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of applicant no. 2, and all questions of eligibility, entitlement and applicability of the relevant rules/instructions are left open for consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.
The Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.