Manoj Kumar Ram vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Shashidhar Shukla and Shri Chanderkant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shivaji Sigh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

The present original application has been filed by the original applicant seeking following relief:

A compendium of the facts as narrated in the original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the office of Rail Superintendent Varanasi through which his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. Applicant has contended that the aforesaid order has been passed without application of mind and without considering the fact that the father of the applicant was first voluntarily retired on the ground of medical unfitness and subsequently died leaving behind the applicant and his family which was completely dependent upon the employee concerned for survival and livelihood. Applicant has further contended that the ground taken by the respondents to reject his case that less than one year of service was remaining when the employee was declared medically unfit, is arbitrary and uncalled for and thus by way of the present OA, he seeks quashing of the impugned order thereby directing the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds otherwise his family will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Respondents, on the other hand, have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the case of the applicant was considered by the competent authority, inquiry was made wherein it was found that when the applicant’s father was declared medically unfit, only 11 months and 29 days of service was remaining and therefore, as per the extant rules and provisions, no compassionate appointment can be granted to the applicant. Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances, the case of the applicant was rejected vide reasoned and speaking order dated 11.06.2025 which was communicated to the applicant and no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the same.

Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant rebutting the averments made in the Counter Affidavit wherein almost same facts and circumstances of the case as have been narrated in the OA have been reiterated.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that father of the applicant Shri Shiv Lochan Prasad was appointed in the respondents’ department on 09.09.1970 and was continuously working since then. He was declared medically unfit for Indian Railway Service in all categories on 31.07.2018 by Divisional Hospital Varanasi although he was also declared medically unfit for the Indian Railway Services in all categories by the Medical Board constituted for the said purpose on 12.07.2017 itself. Several representations were preferred by the father of the applicant seeking compassionate appointment of the applicant. However, the respondents passed the order dated 14.09.2017 of voluntary retirement of the father of the applicant w.e.f. 02.08.2017. Applicant’s father subsequently died on 18.01.2020 leaving behind the entire family. Learned counsel further argued that firstly, the respondents’ authorities delayed in deciding the applicant’s case of compassionate appointment and then, when the case was considered, the respondents rejected the same citing that only 11 months and 29 days of service was remaining of the applicant’s father on the date when he was voluntarily retired or declared medically unfit and thus, no compassionate appointment can be awarded to the applicant. Learned counsel argued that if the authorities concerned had granted some relaxation while counting the service left at the time of applying for compassionate appointment, the applicant would have been duly awarded the points and his case would have become eligible for compassionate appointment but the same was not done. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances, it was argued that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and the same suffers from irregularity and thus the OA be allowed thereby directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant by relaxing the rules and accordingly grant him appointment on compassionate grounds.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the applicant’s counsel and referring to the counter affidavit, he argued that candidature of the applicant was considered and welfare inspector was nominated who submitted the inquiry report after inquiring the matter. In the inquiry, it was found that when the applicant’s father was retired upon being designated as medically unfit, he had a remaining service period of 11 months and 29 days. Thus, case of the applicant was considered in light of consolidated guidelines / directions issued by the General Manager (P), Gorakhpur vide letter No E/239/0/Part V/Five dated 28.02.2017 / 07.03.2017, and the same was rejected on the ground that the employee concerned was having only a service of 11 months and 29 days service left when he was declared medically unfit and thus, extant rules do not permit granting of compassionate appointment in such cases. Considering all these facts, the case of the applicant was not found meritorious and the same was rejected by way of a reasoned order dated 11.06.2025 to which no illegality and infirmity can be attributed. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to dismiss the OA.

Rejoinder has been filed by applicant reiterating the facts as have been narrated in the OA. Referring to the same, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the respondents have been very harsh and inconsiderate while analyzing the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment. He further argued that services of the employee concerned were just a few days short of one year and thus, rejecting the case of the applicant on that ground when the respondents could have overlooked the aforesaid discrepancy is both unjustifiable and harsh.

I have considered the rival contentions and also carefully perused the records of the case.

In this matter, as is evident from the records, the applicant’s father was declared medically unfit and consequently he was voluntarily retired w.e.f. 02.08.2017. Documents on record, specifically, the report of the Medical Board dated 12.07.2017 reveals that the applicant was declared medically unfit for Indian Railway Services in all categories. Case of the applicant was assessed in light of consolidated guidelines / directions issued by the General Manager (P), Gorakhpur vide letter No E/239/0/Part V/Five dated 28.02.2017 / 07.03.2017. As per para 10.03 of the guidelines wherein reference to RBE No 3/2009 dated 06.01.2009 has been made, it is stated that if the railway servant has less than 3 years of service left on the day of declaration of medical incapacity, then the General Manager is the competent authority to take decision. In the instant case of the applicant, it was found that a service period of 11 months and 29 days was left for him to have attained the actual age of superannuation which is much lesser than three years and thus, the case of the applicant was rejected. If the extant provisions as laid down in the aforesaid Circular are compared with the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no irregularity or discrepancy can be attributed to the impugned order. If the date when the employee concerned was declared medically unfit by the Railway Board i.e., 12.7.2017 or even if the date of voluntary retirement i.e., 02.8.2017 is taken into consideration for the purpose of counting the remaining service, in every way, the remaining service was very less than three years. In that situation, the General Manager is the competent authority to take a decision on the case of the applicant. Thus, the order dated 11.6.2025 was passed by the respondents citing the aforesaid ground and case of the applicant was rejected. Other grounds for rejecting the case of the applicant were also explicitly mentioned in the impugned order and thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order is non-speaking in nature. In the event that the remaining service of the applicant’s father was less than three years, the plea of the applicant to direct the respondents to grant relaxation in counting the service, cannot be acceded to.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, I am of the considered opinion that since no relief as prayed for is admissible to the applicant, the instant original application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits.

All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.