Yadvendra vs Union of India & Ors.

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of this case are that the brother of the applicant namely Raghvendra Gupta was initially appointed as Booking Clerk on 07.12.1998 and while posted as Chief Reservation Supervisor (C.R.S.), North Eastern Railway, Sitapur under the control of the respondents, he died on 16.01.2018. The brother of the applicant was unmarried. The other family members of the applicant include his father. His mother died on 12.08.1996. The applicant’s father made several representations for appointment of the applicant on compassionate grounds. By means of the impugned orders dated 21.03.2018, 18.03.2020 and 27.08.2020, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant. Subsequent representations have also been made but no decision has been taken on them.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant and his father were dependent on the deceased employee namely Shri Raghvendra Gupta, who was brother of the applicant. A declaration to this effect has also been made by the deceased employee requesting to enter their names in the service book as dependents declaring them as his nominee. He states that the applicant is the unmarried brother of the deceased employee who was also unmarried. Hence, he is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds as he also possesses the requisite educational qualification. He also states that he has one more brother but he lives separately from the family. The welfare inspector has also conducted the enquiry and found the applicant and his father dependent on the deceased employee but the applicant’s claim has been rejected merely on the ground that his name has not been entered in the Railway Pass and medical card of his deceased unmarried brother.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to the Railway Board circular dated 05.08.1999 for appointment on compassionate ground of dependent of the railway employee dying as bachelor and argued that it clearly provides that the name of the dependent not entering in the pass and Ration Card etc., is only a facilitating factor and not intended to the restricted one i.e. in case of the dependency of the candidate is not covered by the pass declaration, the dependency may be established through Ration Card or though Welfare Inspector's investigations in accordance with the same the applicant is entitled for compassionate appointment but same has not been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned orders. He further argued that the Railway Board had again issued a circular RBE No. 70/2014 dated 08.07.2014 to provide the compassionate appointment to the unmarried brother in case the employee died as bachelor by deputing the Welfare Inspector to enquire into the dependency. Thus, he contends that the applicant is entitled for compassionate appointment but the same has been illegally denied.

Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that in the present case the applicant is the brother of deceased employee and his age is more than 36 years and he possesses excellent qualification as such on the basis of his qualification he is able to earn a good amount and every channel for recruitment is open in market and there is no difficulty for the applicant in obtaining a job on the basis of his qualification in any Industry or Organization. It is mentioned that the applicant is not dependent upon the deceased employee, therefore, his case has not been considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The Welfare Inspector conducted an inquiry and found that the applicant is not dependent upon the deceased employee and he also found that the age of applicant is more than 30 years. After perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Welfare Inspector the competent authority of the department communicated the reason for not accepting his request for compassionate appointment. The applicant was also not included in the Pass Declaration of his deceased brother. It is further stated that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. So, the whole object of granting compassionate appointments is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and it is not a right to get employment. Even if the deceased unmarried brother namely Raghvendra Gupta during his lifetime made a nomination in his service record on 07.07.2012 in which he declared his nominee and dependent as the applicant i.e. Yadvendra Gupta, his unmarried brother and his father Shiv Nath Gupta and also declared a share of 50% to both, still a nomination does not form a ground for grant of compassionate appointment.

I have considered the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.

The applicant in the present case is the brother of the deceased employee who has sought compassionate appointment claiming that he was totally dependent on the income of his deceased brother and was also nominated by his deceased brother in the service records. The other members of the family include the father and a brother who lives separately. The applicant has referred to RBE No.70/2014 dated 08.07.2014 which provides for compassionate appointment to the dependent brother/sister in case of an unmarried employee. He has also relied upon RBE No.165/99 dated 05.08.1999 which provides in paragraph 3 (i) that the condition of inclusion in the pass declaration is only a facilitating factor and not intended to be a restrictive one i.e. in case the dependency of the candidate is not covered by the pass declaration, the dependency may be established through Ration Card or through Welfare Inspector’s investigations. The respondents, on the other hand, have vehemently argued that the applicant is not dependent on the deceased employee as he was not included in the pass declaration, he is more than thirty years old and possesses the educational qualification that is good enough to get him a job anywhere. The respondents have also argued that while nomination can become a basis for payment of retiral dues, it cannot form the basis for grant of compassionate appointment as compassionate appointment should only be granted to the dependent family member of the deceased employee to help the family overcome the financial crisis.

A perusal of the impugned orders annexed as Annexure A-1 of the O.A. reveals that the candidature of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that he was not included in the pass and medical facility of his deceased brother. Apparently, in view of RBE No.165/99 dated 05.08.1999, non-inclusion of a family member in the pass declaration and medical facility does not exclude him from being considered for compassionate appointment. The respondents ought to have inquired about the financial condition of the family members and their dependence on the income of the deceased employee as a source of livelihood and for fulfilling other liabilities. As the impugned orders do not contain any such observation and have merely rejected the claim of the applicant on the basis of non-inclusion in the pass and medical facility, the same are against the Railway Board’s circular on the subject of compassionate appointment and thus, liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 21.03.2018, 18.08.2020 (wrongly printed as 18.03.2020 in the relief clause) and 27.08.2020 (Annexure A-1) are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds strictly as per the rules and guidelines on this subject in the next CRC meeting to be held for the purpose and decide the case of the applicant on the basis of relative merit points to be awarded as per a fresh and thorough investigation report of the welfare inspector. It is also clarified that while making the enquiry, the status of another brother namely Kaushalendra be also gathered.

Accordingly, the O.A. stands disposed of. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.