AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Administrative Member.
This matter is taken up by the Single Bench for disposal in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Chairman, CAT dated 10/09/2021 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and since no complicated question of law is involved.
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
“a) To issue direction upon the respondent to give appointment on compassionate ground to the applicant forthwith.
b)Any other order/orders as deem fit and proper.
c)To produce Connected Department Record at the time of hearing.
d) To cancel, set aside order dated 24.8.2023 forthwith."
Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:-
The application is aggrieved due to the fact that the father and mother have died, as has the elder brother, who is an employee of the Eastern Railway under Asansol Division.
Suddenly, on November 23, 2019, the applicant suffered from acute financial problems and the applicant has submitted succession certificate. Thereafter, the authority concerned gave settlement dues to the applicant and the applicant’s sister, suffering from acute financial problems and a sudden demise of an employee.
The applicant’s family is fully dependent on the deceased employee and the sister has a 50% disability according to the certificate presented to the authority.
After careful examination of the BDO-issued certificate, the applicant’s family is dependent on the deceased employee. The Panchayat also issued a certificate stating that the applicant’s family is dependent on the deceased employee.
The applicant has no landed property, no movable property, no immovable property.
Nobody looks at the applicant’s family, and till date, no appointment has been issued in favour of the applicant and the authority concerned issued a letter dated 24.11.2022. The dependent employee has found it doubtful i.e, why the appointment has not been given after careful examination.
BDO has given a certificate to the applicant, who is fully dependent on the deceased employee and her sister, who has a 50% disability. So, the applicant, who is suffering from a severe financial crisis, is responding to an allegation that is completely illegal and bad in the eyes of the law.
The applicant made representations to the authority concerned for appointment on compassionate grounds, but no appointment has been issued in favour of the applicant.
The respondents have filed their reply objecting to the relief prayed for on the following grounds:-
Sumit Kumar Das was below matric at the time of death of ex-employee and applied for some time to pass Secondary Examination. After passing Secondary Examination from The West Bengal Council of Rabindra Open Schooling in the year December, 2020, he has applied for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground in his favour consequent on death of his elder brother Late Amit Kumar Das, Ex. Helper/TRS/ASN on 23.11.2019.
As per legal heir report, deceased employee has left behind his one unmarried brother and one married sister. Necessary investigation of the case has been made by deputing the Ch. S&WI and he certified that the proposed candidate is the genuine brother of ex. Employee but his dependency on his elder brother (Ex. Employee) is not clear and doubtful.
Dependency certificate of the proposed candidate on ex-employee issued by the BDO/Andal/Paschim Bardhaman dated 05.10.2021. Ex-employee was appointed in Rly on CGA ground and both parents were died on 04.05.1999 (father) and 13.10.2019 (mother).
In this regard in RBE-70/2014, wherein the second last para mentions that:-
“the dependent of an unmarried male/unmarried female Railway employee dying in harness/retiring on medical grounds, may be considered for compassionate appointment subject to the condition that the candidate proposed for appointment is shown 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 documentary proof, the factual position regarding the extent of the dependency may be got verified by deputing a Welfare Inspector to inquire in the circumstances”.
After carefully gone through the relevant papers/documents of the case, the competent authority regretted the case because Sri Sumit Kumar Das (applicant) is the brother of the ex-employee and his age as on date of death of the ex-employee was 30 years, 10 months and 22 days. He has not been reported to have been enrolled in any educational qualification course at the time, which would have proved dependency on his brother. His name is not mentioned as a pass dependent in the ex-employee’s records. The Welfare Inspector has stated in his report that the dependency of the candidate on the ex-employee is not clear. Moreover, he was an adult (30 years plus) and not even a student at the time of death of the employee. Dependency criteria is not completely satisfied, mother is pre-deceased, sister is married and there does not appear to be any liabilities in the form of minor dependents, widow mother or unmarried female dependents.
Heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
The crux of the issue to be decided is that whether the rejection of the dependency certificate dated 05.10.2021 issued by the Block Development Officer is valid in the eyes of law or not.
It is undisputed that in service matter, the respondent authorities are bound by the instructions issued by the Railway Board which are Statutory in nature and binding on the respondents. The RBE/0070/2014 mandates 02 documents, i.e, declaration of names in the past or enclosure of name in the ration card, among others, as valid documents for dependency. The RBE/0070/2014 further mentions that in the absence of these 02 documents, the factual position regarding the extant of the dependency, may be verified by Deputing a Welfare Inspector to enquire in these circumstances.
Since the applicant did not submit Railway pass or Ration Card for claiming dependency on the deceased employee, the respondent authorities have conducted a field enquiry through Chief Social & Welfare Inspector who has reported that the dependency of the candidate on ex-employee is not clear and doubtful.
It is also seen that the certificate dated 05.10.2021 issued by the Block Development Officer is a non-statutory miscellaneous certificate and it does not specify the purpose for which it is issued.
The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the writ appeal in the case of The Secretary, West Bengal Regional … vs Debapriya Bose And Ors. On 26 March, 2007 while dismissing the appeal has stated that the conditions stipulated for appointment under died-in-harness category must be satisfied. The relevant para’s are extracted below:-
“14. However, we make it clear that consideration of the dependency factor whether at all was existing due to the marriage of the writ petitioner has not been decided by us in any way and the matter is kept open for decision by the appropriate authority, if the authority so desires. It is further mentioned by us that since the appointment under compassionate ground under died-in-harness category is per se violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India but the Court of Law is considering such appointment as valid despite breach of Article 14 because of the reason that the statute has prescribed certain norms to identify it by the legislative wisdom though there is no doubt that on challenge of such legislative wisdom the Court in the appropriate cases very well adjudicate the matter to test the vires of the same on the principle of infringement of the basic structure of the Constitution namely, equality clause under Article 14 of Constitution of India.
15.Having regard to such state of affairs, we are of the view that the condition stipulated appointment under died-in-harness category must be satisfied in the true sense and not in the technical manner and as such, we are keeping the point open for adjudication and the appropriate authorities are at liberty to take appropriate steps as to be considered by them right and proper”.
This Tribunal in O.A./350/0495/2019 while dismissing the Original Application in its order dated 20.05.2025, has held that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right. The relevant para’s are extracted below:-
6.4Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1641 OF 2010 has ruled that :-
“ …………………………………. 6. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the Rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant."
Appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right. It is a welfare scheme of the employer to provide relief to the family of an employee who dies in harness leaving the family without a bread winner. Claim for such appointment is traceable to the specific scheme and other rules framed by the employer for offering appointment on compassionate ground”.
In view of the above fact, this Tribunal is of the considered view that an instruction issued through RBE has statutory force and is binding on the respondent authorities which is required to be met for compassionate appointment. Since the applicant has not met with the required parameters of indigency prescribed in the RBE/0070/2014, the respondent authorities have rejected the claim of the applicant, which cannot be interfered with by this Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.