Ms. Sarita Devi vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd & Anr.

The deceased husband of the applicant was working as JE/Store with respondents before his demise on 28.11.2018.

Late Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha had one son namely Sh. Ankit Kumar Jha and one daughter namely Ms. Nishu Kumari Jha from his first wife who died on 08.08.2008.

The second marriage of Late Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha was solemnized with the applicant on 22.11.2010. After the second marriage Late Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha added the names of the applicant and her daughter in his nomination with the department and these were acted upon.

Out of the second marriage, a daughter namely, Saraswati was born. A medical card was issued in favour of Late Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha where names of the applicant and her daughter have been incorporated.

Unfortunately the applicant's husband Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha expired on 28.11.2018. A copy of the death certificate of the applicant's husband is annexed herewith as Annexure A-5.

A provision exists for grant of compassionate appointment as per the policy of the respondents whereby the spouse is at the top. A copy of the policy dated 25.10.2021 is annexed at Annexure A-6. Thus, the applicant submitted her form for compassionate appointment, complete in all respects.

As per the latest policy for compassionate appointment, the object of the scheme to grant appointment on compassionate ground to a dependent family member of a DMRC regular employee who dies leaving his/her family in penury and without any means of livelihood is to give immediate financial support and help to tide over the crises.

Thereafter the applicant requested the respondents to release terminal dues of late Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha and in this regard necessary succession certificate vide judgment dated 16.02.2023 had been obtained from the competent court and thus, she was granted her share in the terminal benefits

Thereafter, the respondents have released the terminal dues of Late Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha in favour of the applicant and other legal heirs as per the succession certificate issued by the competent court of law but applicant's application for compassionate appointment is still pending due to the objections raised by the son and daughter of late Sanjiw Kumar Jha from his first marriage.

It is submitted that the son namely Ankit Kumar Jha (Aged about 33 years) from the first marriage of Late Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha is settled in Dubai at the time of his death. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the daughter i.e. Nishu Kumari Jha (aged about 32 years) from the first marriage of Late Sanjiw Kumar Jha was married at the time of death of Late Sanjiw Kumar Jha and she was also not dependent on deceased at the time death.

The applicant sent representations along with the prescribed form to the respondents for granting her compassionate appointment in terms of relevant rules and regulations prescribed in policy dated 25.01.2021.

That since the respondents did not respond to the representations of the applicant, the applicant was forced to file O.A. No. 524/2025 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2025 directed the respondents to consider the pending representation of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In pursuance to the said order, the respondents passed a detailed speaking order dated 04.04.2025 stating the following:

Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking afore mentioned relief.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the objection regarding the alleged pendency of Civil Suit No. 1067/2023 is no longer sustainable. The said suit has already been disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2026. Thus, there was no pending civil proceeding when the present matter was heard and reserved for judgment, and the Respondents’ objection that the OA was sub judice before the Dwarka Courts no longer survives.

The deceased employee was the sole bread earner of the family, and the applicant and her minor daughter were dependent upon him at the time of his death. The very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family and enable it to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. The Applicant, being the legally wedded surviving spouse and first in the hierarchy under the Respondents’ policy, is therefore entitled to consideration of her claim in accordance with the object of the scheme.

The dependency of the applicant and her minor daughter is duly established from the Medical Card maintained by the respondents and placed at page 23 of the OA, wherein both are recorded as dependants of the deceased employee. The said official record, coupled with the Applicant’s status as the legally wedded wife, clearly supports her claim for compassionate appointment.

The Respondents’ Compassionate Appointment Policy, at Para 3.0(i) at page 28 of the OA, places the “spouse” first in the prescribed hierarchy. Being the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, the applicant is therefore entitled to be considered first, and the respondents cannot bypass the hierarchy prescribed under their own policy by treating the claims of other family members at par with hers. The hierarchy of the policy is as follows:

The applicant was declared nominee by the deceased employee on 18.05.2012, as admitted by the respondents in Para 9 of their Counter Reply at page 4. The said nomination, coupled with the Respondents’ Medical Card, recording the applicant and her minor daughter as dependants and the Policy placing the spouse first in the hierarchy, further supports her claim for compassionate appointment.

The principle that the spouse has the first right of consideration for compassionate appointment is also reflected in the Railway Board Circular dated 21.03.2018, referred to in Para 4 at Annexure Rej-1 of the rejoinder. Though not binding on DMRC, the Circular supports the consistent principle that the surviving spouse is to be considered first. Significantly, the DMRC’s own Compassionate Appointment Policy, Para 3.0(i), also places the spouse at the first position in the hierarchy. Thus, the applicant, being the legally wedded surviving spouse, is entitled to first consideration for compassionate appointment.

That the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Nirmala Pandey v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 162313/2024, decided on 19.03.2024, directly supports the Applicant. The Court held that where the surviving spouse herself seeks compassionate appointment, her claim cannot be made dependent upon a succession certificate or disputes concerning nomination/terminal benefits, and that the wife stands at the top of the preference hierarchy. The principle squarely applies here, where the Respondents have allowed succession/terminal-benefit disputes raised by other family members to overshadow the Applicant’s claim as the legally wedded spouse. Accordingly, her claim is required to be considered under the applicable policy and cannot be deferred or defeated on such grounds.

The judgment of the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Piyush Kumar Anchal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine Chh 513, annexed as Annexure Rej-5, supports the applicant’s case. In paragraphs 12 to 14 (at page 78 of the Rejoinder), the Court held that compassionate appointment must be considered according to the prescribed hierarchy, under which the widow/widower is to be considered first, followed by the son/adopted son and thereafter the daughter/adopted daughter. The Court also held that a succession certificate cannot determine entitlement to compassionate appointment merely because rival claims exist. Thus, the Applicant, being the surviving legally wedded spouse, is entitled to first consideration under the Respondents’ own policy, and the claims of other family members cannot be placed at par with hers.

The judgment in Km. Mohini v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ-A No. 4174 of 2022 (Annexure Rej-6), directly supports the Applicant’s claim. As recorded at pages 81-82 of the Rejoinder, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the first right to compassionate appointment is that of the husband or wife, followed by other eligible family members in the prescribed hierarchy. The Court further held that where the surviving wife is claiming compassionate appointment, another family member cannot claim appointment in preference to her. The said principle squarely applies to the present case, as the Applicant is the surviving legally wedded wife and the Respondents’ own policy also places the spouse at the first position in the hierarchy. Thus, the claims or objections of other family members cannot defeat or postpone the Applicant’s first right of consideration.

The learned counsel for the respondents referred to the preliminary submissions in the counter affidavit which state that when there are contesting claimants from the family of the deceased, it is quite impossible to decide as to whom to offer compassionate appointment in the event of the death of an employee during his service period. The son of the deceased employee, namely Sh. Ankit Kumar Jha has also submitted his representation to the respondent’s seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Moreover, both the parties were entangled in civil litigation for apportionment of the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. The competent court had issued the succession certificate in favour of both the parties and the terminal benefits were apportioned in equal share amongst the five legal heirs. Under such circumstances, the respondents had no other option except seeking NOC from other family members to consider the case of compassionate appointment for the present applicant. Accordingly, the impugned speaking order dated 04.04.2025 does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity and lack of application of mind. Accordingly, the respondents are prepared to consider her case for compassionate appointment after mutual consent of all other family members.

The short issues for adjudication of the present case are:

Whether in absence of mutual consent or NOC from other family members, when there are contesting claimants for compassionate appointment, is it appropriate for the respondents to adopt a policy of hands-off approach waiting for such mutual consent/NOC and allow the family members to endure alleged financial penury? OR Does the policy of compassionate appointment prevent the respondents to weigh the comparative financial situation of rival claimants and offer compassionate appointment to the most deserving candidate among the family members?

Does the policy for compassionate appointment by the respondents assign any priority to any family member in the hierarchy of dependent family members as defined under Clause 3.0 of the extant policy of the respondents?

It will not be out of place to delve into the policy of compassionate appointment of the respondents as placed at Annexure-A6. The preamble or introductory paragraph, the objective and applicability of the said policy states:

A bare perusal of the aforementioned paragraphs shows that it was the bounden duty of the respondents to ascertain who were the “dependant” family members of the deceased employee at the time of death of the deceased. Because there were contesting claims, and there was a succession certificate, the respondents have not bothered to determine who, amongst the family members of the deceased, were dependant on him at the time of his death. As it has been admitted, the daughter from the first marriage of the deceased employee was married prior to his death. That leaves the son from the first marriage, the second legally wedded wife and the minor daughter from the second marriage to be determined as dependant family members. It is also admitted that the applicant and her minor daughter have been declared dependant by the deceased employee when he was alive and were issued dependant health cards. It is admitted that the son of the deceased employee, i.e. Sh. Ankit Kumar is working (implying gainfully employed) in Dubai. With this overwhelming documentary and admitted evidence available with the respondents, it is not understood as to why the respondents could not determine effectively who were the dependant family members at the time of death of Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the respondents have failed to discharge their bounden duty towards the family of the deceased in respect of compassionate appointment. Mere issuance of succession certificate by competent court does not prohibit them to determine such dependency and consider the claim for compassionate appointment.

This brings us to the second issue. Even if there are contesting claimants for compassionate appointment, in absence of mutual consent/NOC from rival claimants, who should be considered and/or offered appointment, after found eligible against available vacancy. The extant policy is silent on this aspect. However, the objective of compassionate appointment policy is to ameliorate the immediate financial destitution of the dependant family member(s) and to tide over immediate financial crisis which bedevils the family due to untimely death of the sole bread earning member. Considering the spirit and essence of the policy of the welfare state, the law courts have taken a considered stand to determine the priority in offering compassionate appointment to any one of the family members from amongst the list of dependant family members of the deceased employee. In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to Railway Board’s circular dated 21.03.2018. Para 4 of the said circular states:

Though Railway Board circulars are not exactly applicable to DMRC, as such unless it is brought out that in service matters, when any policy of DMRC is not explicit, then Railway Board circulars be relied upon, still considering the objective of compassionate appointment and the policy of the Welfare State to which DMRC belongs, the interpretation may be extended to the case at hand.

Not only the sister organisation, i.e., Railway Board has determined the priority amongst dependant family members to offer compassionate appointment but also several judgments as cited by the learned counsel for the applicant supported such a view. The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Smt. Nirmala Pandey (supra) case has examined the hierarchy of the dependent family members. As the spouse is at the top in the list of dependants, the Hon’ble High Court held that “it is evident that an order of preference has been provided for this purpose.” It held that the legally wedded wife or husband of the deceased employee should be given first preference.

The learned counsel for the applicant has further cited the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Piyush Kumar Anchal (supra) where the extant policy has specifically mentioned to offer compassionate appointment as per the hierarchy and in the event of refusal by the members at the top, the offer of appointment shall be offered to next in the hierarchy. However, the extant policy of DMRC has not specified such preference. Similar is the situation in case of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad judgment in Km. Mohini (supra). The Uttar Pradesh Rules for compassionate specifically mentioned the order of preference. These Rules and policies of Chhattisgarh and U.P. have specified the preference in the hierarchy of the dependants.

Nevertheless, the fact that the deceased employee included the legally wedded wife as nominee, the respondents issued dependant health card to her and her minor daughter and the fact that the applicant has to cater to the minor daughter, and also the fact that the Railway Board has similar policy of according priority to the source of deceased employee, this Tribunal holds that the present applicant should be given first preference for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds.

In view of the above, the present OA is allowed with the following directions:

The respondents shall first determine who were dependant family members of the deceased employee at the time of death of Sh. Sanjiw Kumar Jha. Our observations in this regard in preceding paragraphs shall be given due weightage.

After considering the list of dependant family members, let the respondents consider the application of the present applicant as first preference for compassionate appointment.

If otherwise the applicant is found suitable and if the rules permit (vacancy exists for quota for compassionate appointment), the applicant shall be offered suitable appointment on compassionate grounds.

The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.