Tejraj vs Union Of India & Ors.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that his father, Late Shri Amba Lal, had served under the Railway Department, who expired on 21.12.2020 while in service. Subsequently, the applicant submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment under the prevailing rules of the Railway Department. However, the application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2022 solely on the ground that an FIR was lodged against the applicant and the applicant had not disclosed the fact of pendency of the criminal case against him. It is apt to mention herein that upon bare perusal of the point no.15 of the application form submitted by the applicant, it was clearly mentioned that a case was pending against the applicant. Therefore, the above contention was contrary to the facts available on record.

Being aggrieved, the applicant filed O.A. No. 276/2022 before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which was decided on 07.03.2025 with the direction that mere pendency of a criminal case/FIR is not a bar for consideration of compassionate appointment of an otherwise eligible applicant, and the order of the respondent authority rejecting the application of the applicant for compassionate grounds was quashed. Further, the respondents were directed to consider the applicant's case afresh for compassionate appointment. The respondent authority had not challenged the aforementioned judgment of this Tribunal dated 07.03.2025 and hence it had attained finality. Thereafter, the respondents called for supporting documents and enquiry reports, which the applicant furnished including consent of all legal heirs of Late Shri Amba Lal.

Meanwhile, during this period, the mother of the applicant expired on 26.12.2022, the same was informed to the respondent authority and submitted all necessary papers. However, the respondents again vide order dated 04.08.2025 rejected the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment on a completely new and unsustainable ground that since the mother of applicant expired and the sons and daughters of deceased employee were already married, they were not dependent upon the deceased employee, therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be granted. Hence, he prayed that the present OA may be allowed on the following grounds.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is well settled law that dependence for the purpose of compassionate appointment is to be determined with reference to the date of death of the employee or the date of first filing the application, not on subsequent changes in the family circumstances. Further, the respondents had violated the binding order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 276/2022. The respondents were under obligation to reconsider the applicant's case strictly in accordance with the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal rather than finding new grounds for rejection, which were never part of the discussion of the concerned OA. Moreover, the death of applicant's mother is irrelevant for assessing eligibility.

The compassionate appointment scheme aims to mitigate immediate financial crisis after the employee's death. Subsequent events, such as death of another family member or marriage of dependents, cannot defeat accrued rights. He also relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High Courts whereby it was held that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be considered with reference to the date of death of the employee; authorities cannot reject applications on grounds arising subsequently and the purpose of compassionate appointment cannot be frustrated by departmental delays. Therefore, he prays that the instant OA may be allowed.

Further, Shri Tejraj filed an OA No. 276/2022 for compassionate appointment in the Hon'ble CAT, Jodhpur which was disposed of vide order dated 07.03.2025 with the direction that the application of applicant seeking appointment on compassionate ground filed by the the applicant was rejected vide letter dated 27.06.2022 on the sole ground that criminal case is pending against the applicant before the court, therefore, his prayer would be considered only after decision in the criminal case. Further, it was mentioned in the order that it is also a well settled law that pendency of criminal case is no bar to give appointment to an otherwise eligible person. In the present case, the applicant did not conceal the fact of pendency of criminal case against him. In view of the aforesaid direction, the respondent authority reconsidered the case of the applicant and sent a Welfare Inspector to conduct a detailed investigation into the economic and social status of the deceased employee's family. It was also informed that the wife of the deceased, Smt. Sukhi Devi, had also passed away on 26.12.2022 while receiving family pension benefits. It was also reported that the deceased employee's two daughters had been married 30 and 26 years ago respectively, and are living as housewives at their in-laws' homes. The deceased employee's younger son, Mr. Mahendra, was also married 21 years ago and he supported his family and living separately. Similarly, other son got married 27 years ago and is supporting his family by earning independently and living in a separate house.

Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the Railway Board’s letter RBE No.70/2014 dated 08.07.2014, that for the compassionate appointment, the essential condition that the applicant should be dependent on the deceased employee of the Railway and he should have been living with the family of the deceased employee. In the present case, there is no liability on any member of the family of deceased employee. Moreover, the applicant is also fully competent to take family responsibility as his own. Therefore, on the basis of the above facts, the OA lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.

He further contended that the arguments of the applicant are misconceived that his application was to be decided according to the merit at the time of death of the deceased employee. However, it is evident that a case was pending in the criminal court and his application was not rejected on any ground rather his application was pending on the pretext that a criminal case was pending before the trial Court. Subsequently an inquiry was conducted by the Welfare Inspector of the Railway, wherein it was reported that there was no liability of the deceased Railway employee on the part of the applicant herein, therefore, on the ground of that he is not eligible to be appointed accordingly his application was rejected.

It is a well settled principle that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the public employment and it has to be given to mitigate financial crisis of the deceased employee at the time of his death. The primary objective of the compassionate appointment is to take care of the liability of family members of the deceased employee. In the present case, it is undisputedly an admitted fact which had not been denied by the applicant herein that the daughters of the deceased employee had already been married and living separately in her in-law’s house and the widow of the deceased employee had already died, therefore, there is no liability on the part of the applicant herein of the any family member of the deceased Railway employee.

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in our considered view, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment in place of his father. We are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant was not dependent on the deceased employee at the time of death of his father i.e. on 21.12.2020; he was married, living separately, earning his livelihood; and supporting his family. Therefore, he is not eligible to be considered for the appointment on compassionate grounds.

In view of the above, the OA lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.