Rinku Meena & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr.

This OA, under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 is filed claiming the relief to issue an order to quash the impugned order dated 03.07.2018 passed by respondents, and for a direction to the respondents to give appointment to applicant No. 1 against any class 3 and 4 post, and any other order deemed fit and proper and to award cost.

The facts of the applicant is that the applicant No. 1 is the son and the applicant No. 2 is wife of late Batti Lal Meena who was working under respondent No. 2 at Chunar Junction Mal-godam on the post of Sealman, who expired on 31.10.1996. The applicant No. 2 Smt. Santara Devi was called for medical examination by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 13.03.2001 on 21.03.2001 in Northern Railway Hospital, Allahabad and on 22.03.2001 for interview in the office of respondent No. 2 for appointment against Class IV post. On 23.02.2001 when applicant No. 2 deposited Rs. 16/- vide money receipt No. 800127 dated 23.03.2001 and went to the Railway Hospital she fell ill and Railway Doctor and employee given treatment and she was told that when her son will attain the age of 18 years, you may apply for appointment of your son and his details was written in medical register as well as minority register and after treatment she was allowed to go her home. Except revenue receipt no other certificate was given to the applicant No. 2 at that time. Applicant No. 2 was never offered any appointment against Class IV post. Applicant states that the date of birth of the applicant No. 1 is 01.07.1995 and he became major on 01.07.2013 and then on 01.08.2013 she gave an application to the General Manager N.C.R. for giving appointment to her son. The said application was sent to respondent No. 2. Applicants followed up their case and no appointment was given. Then Divisional Personnel Officer, Allahabad wrote in the application of the applicant, “put up with the file” on 07.12.2016. The applicant No. 2 met Divisional Personnel Officer and gave application on 05.01.2017. The Welfare Inspector vide letter dated 16.02.2017 directed the applicants to submit documents for compassionate appointment. Pursuant to which the applicants gave copies of the required documents, who show that they were in poor economic condition.

The Divisional Personnel Office vide letter dated 03.07.2018 rejected their claim which is against the Railway Board order dated 05.09.2001 for giving compassionate appointment to minor son‟s when he become major in the Railways. The applicants are poor having no other moveable or immoveable property, only small piece of land of one bigha and small amount of family pension of Rs. 1275/- fixed on April 1999 is there and they have a daughter to look after and they belong to SC/ST community. The applicants requested from the Railway Hospital authorities to given the copies of the 2 registers in which the applicant No. 2 statement was recorded by the Railway authorities as she is ailing and not physically fit to discharge duties and when her son Rinku Meena become major, he may be given appointment but Railway authority said that medical register has been kept somewhere else and could not be traced and copies of the minority register could not be given to the applicants, as it was never maintained by the Railways and his Register is only on paper and never existed. In the letter of Divisional Personnel Officer dated 08.09.2017 para 3 and 4 following are mentioned.

The applicant further say that they are covered by the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana - 1994 SCC (4) 138 wherein pursuant to the scheme of Railway Board order dated 05.09.2001 for giving compassionate appointment by the Railway where the Railway Board directed for providing compassionate appointment to a minor son if mother or family member not eligible or in position to accept the appointment and as is in the case of applicants. Hence, the applicants say that action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the Railway Board‟s order dated 05.09.2001 and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, hence, the OA should be allowed.

The respondents have filed counter reply where they agree with the basic facts of the case that late Batti Lal Meena, Ex. Sealman working at North Central Railway, Chunar died on 31.10.1996. As per statement of Smt. Santara Devi wife of late Shri Batti Lal Meena, her case was considered for appointment on compassionate ground of death of her husband and sent for medical examination by the Railway administration for appointment on compassionate ground but after medical examination she did not join her duty. Now after 21 years she claims for appointment on compassionate ground to her son Shri Rinku Meena. On consideration her representation the competent authority decided that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such employment. The authorities have to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and only if it is satisfied, that the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The objection being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. As in this case as very long time has passed since the deceased has died and the family has sustained, there is no urgency and emergency and there is no need for compassionate appointment in this case. Hence, the OA should be dismissed.

Rejoinder reply has been filed by the applicants where they reiterate their stand as in the OA. Wherein they reemphasized that as per rule dated 05.09.2001 of Railway Board, the appointment to the deceased employee‟s son within 2 years when he became major is possible. The authorities are not giving them employment as per the said rule.

The case came up for final hearing on 01.11.2023. Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents were present and heard. The respondents have filed written submission. I have gone through the records carefully and considered the rival contentions.

From the record it is evident that the bread winner expired on 31.10.1996 since then more than 2½ decades have passed and the family has sustained in terms of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana - 1994 SCC (4) 138 (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down following important principle regarding compassionate appointment:-

This case is not coming within the permissible principles laid down in the said case, particularly the “(vi)” point, „compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not , vested right which can be exercised at any time in future‟, and same has been quoted by the authorities in their impugned order. Furthermore, from the record it is evident that in the year 2001 Smt. Santra Devi, wife of late Batti Lal Meena was offered a job and she was called for medical examination for which some records are made available. Although in para 3 of the OA the applicants says that while she went for medical examination, she fell ill and during treatment of applicant No. 2 was told that when her son will attain the age of 18 years you may apply for appointment of your son and this was written in medical register as well as in minority register, but no evidence to that effect has been given, so only inference is that she was offered a job which she did not take on the pretext that her son can ask for job once he attains majority. This conduct of her also shows that she was not in a dire need for any penury due to death of her husband and the sole bread winner of the family and she had adequate pension and other means of livelihood. And as per their own statement they had one bigha of land from which some income is coming. They were well off and they have lived for more and 2½ decades without any problem since the death of the employee. At this stage before me, I do not find any ground and material to come to a conclusion that the family is still in any penury. And as per the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), there is no case for the applicant to be given compassionate appointment at this stage as compassionate appointment is an exception to the general scheme of public employment which are governed by the Constitutional norms and everyone else has equal right to compete for such public employment and no one can be given public employment bases on any hereditary rights infringing the constitutional norms and the ruling of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (supra).

Considering all these, from the facts of this case as well as the rulings of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, there is no merit in the OA. Hence, the OA dismissed. All associated MAs, if any, shall stand disposed off. No costs.