Dilip Kumar vs The General Manager, Northern Central Railway & Ors.

Heard, Shri Hari Shankar Chaurasia, counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pooja Mishra, counsel for the respondents.

The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -

Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant that the father of the applicant, Late Mahesh Babu, was appointed as Trackman in the office of the Senior Section Engineer (Rail Pathway), North Central Railway, Tundla, on 01.10.1998 and died in harness on 06.06.2024 due to critical medical issues, leaving behind two sons, namely Jitendra Kumar and Dilip Kumar, and two daughters, namely Sanju and Seema Kumari. The applicant’s mother had predeceased his father on 30.06.2008. After the death of his father, the applicant submitted an application dated 20.06.2024 seeking compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, on a suitable post commensurate with his qualifications, after completing all requisite formalities. The applicant’s family, being solely dependent upon the deceased employee, has been facing severe financial hardship, and the Village Pradhan also issued a certificate confirming the unemployment and financial distress of the applicant’s family. However, the respondent no. 4, vide impugned order dated 01.08.2024, rejected the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment without assigning any cogent reasons, considering the facts and merits of the case, or following the principles of natural justice, thereby passing a non-speaking, arbitrary, illegal and unjust order. Hence, the applicant has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 and a direction to the respondents to consider his claim and grant him compassionate appointment on a suitable post commensurate with his qualifications under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974^.Hence, the present Original Application.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit, wherein, It is submitted that the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was duly considered by the competent authority and rejected vide impugned letter dated 01.08.2024 issued by respondent no. 4, after an enquiry conducted by the Personnel Welfare Inspector/Staff Welfare Inspector, wherein it was found that all the family members of the deceased employee, including the applicant, were major and married, the applicant being approximately 33 years of age, and his father having died on 06.06.2024, about six months prior to his scheduled retirement. It was further found that the applicant had himself disclosed in paragraph no. 10 of his affidavit, filed as Annexure No. 6 to the Original Application, that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as a labourer, and that all the sons and daughters of the deceased employee had been married during his lifetime, while the applicant’s mother had predeceased his father on 30.06.2008. It is also submitted that the terminal dues amounting to Rs.23,74,129/- payable on account of the death of the deceased employee had already been disbursed to his family members and no further dues remained payable. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the competent authority rightly rejected the applicant’s claim, as compassionate appointment is not a vested right or an entitlement arising automatically upon the death of an employee in harness, but is an exceptional measure intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing acute financial distress. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha, AIR 1996 SC 1961; Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 560; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394; and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents submit that the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 is justified and the Original Application is devoid of merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.

In reply, the applicant has filed and submitted that, vide order dated 15.12.2025, this Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to direct deletion of respondent No. 1 from the array of parties. That the father of the applicant, namely Mahesh Babu (since deceased), was employed as Track Man in the office of Senior Section Engineer (Rail Pathway), North Central Railway, and died in harness on 06.06.2024, leaving behind his two sons, namely Jitendra Kumar and Dilip Kumar, and two daughters, namely Sanju and Seema Kumari, as his dependants. That, thereafter, the applicant submitted an application dated 20.06.2024 seeking compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, on a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualification; however, the competent authority rejected his claim without proper application of mind and without assigning cogent reasons. That the applicant specifically denies the allegations made in the counter affidavit regarding the family being well settled and the applicant earning Rs. 9,000/- per month as a labourer, as the applicant is unemployed and the deceased employee's family is facing acute financial hardship and is on the verge of starvation. That the applicant, being a dependent family member of the deceased railway employee, has a genuine and bona fide claim for consideration for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and policy. That the judgments and case laws relied upon by the respondents are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. That the rejection of the applicant's claim is arbitrary, unreasoned and unsustainable in the eyes of law; hence, the impugned rejection order is liable to be set aside and the Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

Heard the learned counsels of both the sides. It is the case of the Applicant that his compassionate appointment case was rejected without really going into the merits of the case by just saying that all family members were adults and married. The definition of Family has been based on the one given for Railway pass. As per the latest ruling on the subject, married sons and daughters are also eligible for compassionate appointment. The applicant’s case has been rejected by a cryptic order saying that since the family members are adults and married, the case is rejected.

Counsel for applicant said that he would be satisfied if he is informed of the basis on which his case was rejected.

It is therefore, directed that the Applicant be given a detailed and reasoned order as to what were the parameters considered and why his case was not found suitable for consideration of compassionate appointment.

Accordingly, Original application is disposed of.