AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 21.05.2023 and 02.04.2024 passed by respondent No.3 and 4 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the claim of applicant on merit for grant of compassionate appointment as per rule.
(ii)Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iii)Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case are that the husband of applicant No.1 i.e. late Om Prakash was employed under the respondents on the post of call boy and died during the service period in the year 2008 due to heart attack. When the husband of applicant No.1 died, he left behind five members in the family i.e. Smt. Laxmi Devi (Wife), Sunil Kumar (Son), Km. Asha (Daughter), Km. Reena (Daughter) and Kamal Shakya (Son). After the death of husband of applicant No.1, the respondents department issued PPO in favour of her and also paid all post retiral benefits also. Applicant No.1 applied for compassionate appointment to her son namely Late Sunil Kumar and the respondents after considering the indigent condition and family and liabilities of deceased employee namely late Om Prakash, granted appointment to Late Sunil Kumar on compassionate ground on 15.02.2009. However, due to prolonged illness, Late Sunil Kumar died on 13.05.2023 leaving behind his mother, two unmarried sisters and one unmarried and unemployed brother i.e applicant No.2. After the death of Late Sunil Kumar, the respondents have paid all the settlement dues. Then applicant No.2 submitted a representation on 30.06.2023 before the respondent No.3 along with the affidavits of himself as well as family members and certificate of Paarshad regarding the indigent condition of family and requested for grant of compassionate appointment in place of his brother Late Sunil Kumar under dying in harness rule. Applicant No.1 also submitted representation before the respondents on 21.11.2023 and requested for consideration of grant of compassionate appointment to her son namely Kamal Shakya (applicant No.2). Eventually vide order dated 02.04.2024, respondent No.4 has rejected the representation of applicant No.1 and submitted that the claim of applicant No.1 for grant of compassionate appointment to applicant No.2 has been rejected by competent authority because the said Late Sunil Kumar was unmarried and had no liability left upon him and also applicant No.2 could not come under the purview of dependent of Late Sunil Kumar in view of railway employees pass rules, 1986 and as such his claim could not be considered as per rule. when the respondents did not consider the claim of applicant No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment in place of his brother Late Sunil Kumar, he submitted representation before the respondent No.3 on 05.05.2024 but the said representation was also rejected vide impugned order dated 21.06.2024 on the aforesaid ground. Hence, the present O.A.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that after the death of Late Sunil Kumar, his family has been left in indigent condition because the deceased employee was the only earning member in the family, who had the responsibility of looking after of his old mother, marriage of two unmarried daughters and also taking care of his younger brother i.e. applicant No.2. Applicant no.2 is fully eligible for appointment in the respondents department. So far as the ground of dependability of applicant No.2 on Late Sunil Kumar is concerned, it is submitted that as per Master Circular No.16 (for grant of compassionate appointment) and Railway Board letter No. E(NG)II/2014/RC-1/SCR/5 dated 08.07.2014, (RBE No. 70/2014), it is categorically mentioned that
"However, the dependent of an unmarried male/unmarried female Railway employee dying in harness/retiring on medical grounds, may be considered for compassionate appointment by the Railway at its own level, subject to the condition that the candidate proposed for appointment is shown as dependent on the ex-employee on the basis of documents such as inclusion/ declaration of name in the pass or in Ration cards etc. The condition of inclusion in the pass declaration or Ration cards etc. is only a facilitating factor, and not intended to be a restrictive one. In the absence of any such documentary proof, the factual position regarding the extent of the dependency may be got verified by deputing a Welfare Inspector to inquire into the circumstances. The relaxation of time limit permissible in the case of minor children of those employees who die in harness would also apply in the case of dependents of those who die as bachelor/spinster".
Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that at the time of death of father of applicant No.2, he was minor and totally dependent upon his elder brother and at the time of death of Late Sunil Kumar, the applicant No.2 is studying and having responsibility of looking after the mother and marriage of two unmarried sisters. Thus, he is eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment which is meant to provide support to the family of the deceased and help them tide over the sudden crises resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that after the death of Late Sunil Kumar all the settlement has been released in favour of Smt. Laxmi Devi as at the time of death i.e. on 13.05.2023, he was unmarried. During the period of service the Central Administrative Tribunalaforesaid Late Sunil Kumar did not disclose the name of any person in family pass or PTO for availing facility as his dependent. It is further argued that as per Railway Servant Pass Rule 1986 (2nd Edition -1993) rule 2-C (iii), (iv) and (v) the major brother is not dependent on the Railway Servant. Thus, the competent authority considered the case in light of Railway Board letter No.03/2009 dated 06.01.2009 and found that the major brother of the unmarried employee is not found dependent as such the major brother of the deceased employee is not entitled for giving appointment on compassionate ground. It is further stated that in pursuance of Railway Board letter No.03/2009 dated 06.01.2009, the Divisional Railway Manager is fully competent to consider the case with regard to appointment on compassionate ground. Referring to various case laws of the Hon’ble Apex Court, learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the objection of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. So, the whole object of granting compassionate appointments is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and not a right to get employment.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the entire documents record.
A similar issue has been decided by this Tribunal in Original Application no.467 of 2025 (Manish Kumar Mandal and another vs Union of India and others) decided on 30.07.2026 in which the claim of the dependent brother of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment has been directed to be reconsidered in accordance with the Railway Board’s letter dated 08.07.2014 and other applicable instructions governing the matter after taking into consideration the report of the Welfare Inspector, the material related to dependency and the financial condition of the family. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced below for reference:-
“10.From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the case of the applicant has been rejected primarily on the ground that he was aged about 28 years and not come under the definition of Railway Servant Pension Rule, 1993 and also after considering the Railway Board letter dated 08.07.2014. Therefore, it would be appropriate to go through the Railway Board Letter dated 08.07.2014, which reads as under:-
As the field units are aware, dependant family members for the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds means spouse or son (Including adopted son) or daughter (including adopted daughter) or brother/sister in the case of unmarried Government servant, who is wholly dependent on the Government servant at the time of death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be.
Further, in terms of para 2 of letter No. E(NG)III-78/RC1/1 dated 3.2.81, General Managers can consider for employment of married daughters, if they satisfy themselves that the married daughter will be the bread-winner of the family of the Railway servant concerned. It has also been stipulated vide instructions issued under RBE No. 224/2001 dated 21.11.2001 that the cases of dependant divorced/widowed daughters should also be considered for such appointment as in the case of married daughters subject to the condition that former should have been wholly dependent on the ex-employee at the time of the death/medical invalidation of the latter.
The existence of a number of instructions as well as the issue of a specific clause of 'dependency on the ex-Railway employee' have been engaging the attention of this office for some time. Accordingly, the matter has been reviewed by the Board and it has been decided that it should be left to the discretion of the family concerned in case of death of ex-employee to request for a job to either spouse or any child {whether son or daughter (unmarried/married/divorced/widowed)} subject to the condition that the concerned child will be the breadwinner of the family concerned. Further, for this purpose instructions issued by this Ministry vide letter issued under RBE No. 22/2014 dated 4.3.14 be read in the same spirit.
However, the dependent of an unmarried male/unmarried female Railway employee dying in harness/retiring on medical grounds, may be considered for compassionate appointment by the Railway at its own level, subject to the condition that the candidate proposed for appointment is shown as dependent on the ex-employee on the basis of documents such as inclusion/declaration of names in the pass or in Ration cards etc.. The condition of inclusion in the pass declaration or Ration cards etc. is only a facilitating factor, and not intended to be a restrictive one. In the absence of any such Central Administrative Tribunaldocumentary proof, the factual position regarding the extent of the dependency may be got verified by deputing a Welfare Inspector to inquire into the circumstances. The relaxation of time limit permissible in the case of minor children of those employees who die in harness would also apply in the case of dependents of those who die as bachelor/spinster.
11.A plain reading of the aforesaid Railway Board letter dated 08.07.2014 makes it abundantly clear that in the case of an unmarried Railway employee dying in harness, a brother or sister may be considered for compassionate appointment, provided he or she was wholly dependent upon the deceased employee. The policy further clarifies that dependency may be established through documents such as inclusion in Pass/PTO, Ration Card etc., and even in the absence of such documentary evidence, the factual position regarding dependency is required to be verified through an inquiry by the Welfare Inspector. Thus, the emphasis of the policy is on actual dependency and the financial condition of the family rather than on the age of the claimant.
12.Further, the Railway Board letter dated 08.07.2014 does not prescribe any maximum age of 25 years or any other age limit for determining whether a brother or sister of an unmarried deceased employee can be treated as a dependent for the purpose of compassionate appointment. The criterion of '25 years' finds place only under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 for determining the eligibility of an unmarried son to receive family pension. The object and scope of the Pension Rules are entirely different from the scheme governing compassionate appointment. Therefore, unless the compassionate appointment policy itself specifically incorporates such restriction, the dependency contemplated under the Railway Board's policy cannot automatically be equated with the dependency envisaged under the Pension Rules.
13.The respondents, while rejecting the claim of the applicant, have not pointed out any provision contained in the Railway Board's letter dated 08.07.2014 or any other Letter/Circular governing the field, which prescribes an upper age limit of 25 years for considering the appointment of a brother or sister of an unmarried deceased employee on compassionate grounds. Rather, the impugned order proceeds on the premise that since an unmarried son above the age of 25 years is not entitled to family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the applicant, being 28 years of age, is also not entitled to compassionate appointment. Such reasoning, in the opinion of this Tribunal, is wholly misconceived, as the eligibility for family pension and the entitlement to compassionate appointment are governed by two distinct sets of rules operating in different fields.
14.The plea taken by the respondents that the mother of the applicant-1 (applicant No.2) is receiving two family pensions, one on account of the death of her husband and another on account of the death of her unmarried son, also does not appear Central Administrative Tribunalto be tenable in the eyes of law. The receipt of family pension, by itself, cannot be made the sole or determinative ground for rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the bereaved family and to alleviate the hardship caused by the death of the employee. The competent authority is required to assess the overall financial condition of the family, its liabilities, the number of dependents, and other relevant circumstances. Merely because the applicant-2 is receiving two family pensions does not ipso facto establish that the family is financially secure or that no financial hardship exists. In the absence of any such objective assessment, the rejection of the applicant's claim solely on the said ground cannot be sustained.
15.In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 is not tenable in the eyes of law and same is hereby set aside. In view of the quashment of the impugned order, the competent authority amongst respondents is directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant-1 afresh strictly in accordance with the Railway Board's letter dated 08.07.2014 and other applicable instructions governing compassionate appointment, after taking into consideration the report of the Welfare Inspector, the material relating to dependency and the financial condition of the family, in accordance with.
16.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17.Resultantly, original application stands allowed.
18.Pending Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
19.No order as to cost.”
The RBE No.03/2009 dated 06.01.2009 referred to by the respondents pertains to delegation of powers to lower authorities or re-adjusting competencies within railway administrations for processing compassionate ground appointments and make decisions related to grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent family members of deceased, missing, or medically incapacitated railway employees. Making a reference to RBE No.70/2014 dated 08.07.2014, this Tribunal has observed that the Railway Board’s letter dated 08.07.2014 makes it abundantly clear that in the case of an unmarried Railway employee dying in harness, a brother or sister may be considered for compassionate appointment, provided he or she was wholly dependent upon the deceased employee. The policy further clarifies that dependency may be established through documents such as inclusion in Pass/PTO, Ration Card etc. and even in the absence of such documentary evidence, the factual position regarding dependency is required to be verified through an inquiry by the Welfare Inspector.
The issue involved in the present matter is also regarding the dependency of the brother of the deceased employee and his eligibility for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased brother. Therefore, in light of the order passed in O.A./467/2025 as quoted hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 21.05.2023 and 02.04.2024 are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant on merit for grant of compassionate appointment as per rules on the basis of a verification report by a welfare inspector regarding the dependency of the applicant No.2 on the deceased employee and the financial condition of the dependent family members of the deceased employee in the next CRC meeting.
Thus, the O.A. stands allowed. All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
( Justice Om Prakash VII) Member (J)
Madhu