V. Narayanan vs Union of India

The petitioner was initially engaged as a Casual Labourer on 02.01.1975 at Salt Cotaurs. Thereafter, he was promoted as a substitute Khalasi in the scale of pay of Rs. 196-232. In the year 1985, he was promoted as a Line Man. A further promotion was given to him in the year 1988 as Line Man-II. While he was working in the said capacity, he met with an accident.

As the petitioner was declared medically unfit, he was offered an alternative appointment as Crew Booking Clerk. The said appointment was not given effect to as the offer was made without conducting a screening as mandated in para 1306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Thereafter, by following the procedure, a recommendation was made providing alternative employment to the petitioner in a Group-D post. Accordingly, he was offered an alternative employment as a Compound Gangman as per the recommendation of the Screening Committee. He was absorbed as Mali with effect from 09.02.1996 and he was working in the said capacity till he attained the age of superannuation i.e., on 30.06.2010 with due pay protection.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner has made a representation on 25.06.2007 and 11.04.2008 seeking voluntary retirement with a request to provide compassionate appointment to his son. Placing reliance upon the condition 4(b) of the Railway Board''s letter dated 14.06.2006, which mandates five years or more service for the purpose of considering a compassionate appointment on medical ground, the second respondent rejected the request of the petitioner by Order dated 04.5.2010. Challenging the said order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1039 of 2010. The Tribunal, in turn, rejected the application on the ground that admittedly, the petitioner did not have more than five years of service at the time of making his request and he retired from service only after reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fact the petitioner was incapacitated while in service is not in dispute. The attainment of age of superannuation happened after the request made by the petitioner and therefore, the same cannot be put against him. The letter of the Railway Board is dated 14.06.2006. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be non-suited on the ground of not having five years of service. Therefore, the writ petition will have to be allowed.

Admittedly, as on the date of the request made by the petitioner on compassionate appointment, the petitioner has not completed five years. A compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. In other words, such an appointment can only be considered based upon the rules and regulations applicable to an employee concerned. When the petitioner did not have the adequate number of years of service, he having already attained the age of superannuation, as rightly held by the Tribunal, he is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment in favour of his son. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.