Compassionate appointment policies prioritize immediate relief for families of deceased employees, and delays must be evaluated in context rather than strictly adhered to, especially when financial distress is evident.

ORDER :

Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J.

Heard, Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

1. Embittered with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.1534/2014 pronounced on 27.12.2018 rejecting the case of the petitioner, who was the applicant in the O.A. for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The parties are arrayed as in the present writ petition.

3. The contour of facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that, the petitioner/daughter of the deceased employee (B.Ramulu) states that on 03.12.1970, B.Ramulu joined as Gangaman in the Railways and he was subjected to medical examination and in pursuance of the said examination on 18.08.1999, he was medically de-categorized and as a consequence, he opted for voluntary retirement which was accepted on 22.03.2000 by the respondents herein. B.Ramulu rendered 30 years of service in the respondent organization. B.Ramulu, who opted for voluntary retirement, had three unmarried daughters, two sons and his wife and the pension fixed at Rs.1895/- in the year 2000 at the time of retirement. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was also released towards gratuity and PF.

4. The petitioner further contends that her elder brother namely Bora Srinu was suffering from mental ailment for which a lot of medical expenses are to be incurred and the entire family are dependents on their father’s pension. On 25.04.2003, the petitioner’s sister by name Bora Ramalaxmi died in a mysterious circumstances in a road accident and thereafter her father, B.Ramulu died on 02.08.2018. The petitioner in her affidavit stated that her father; herself and other family members are not very much aware of the Railway Rules, regarding the compassionate appointment. On 21.02.2012, a representation was made by her father to the respondent authorities seeking appointment under compassionate grounds. Initially, the Divisional Railway Authorities recommended her case positively to the General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar. But the respondents 1 and 2 rejected her representation for compassionate appointment on the ground that the application is time barred vide letter No.ECoR/Pers/Wel/Staff Grievance – Diary No.148, dated 13.02.2013. Dissatisfied with the said rejection, the father of the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.712 of 2013 to set aside the order passed by the authorities dated 13.02.2013 on the ground that it is not a reasoned order and the Tribunal on 11.04.2014 set aside the order dated 13.02.2013 on the ground that it is vitiated for want of cogent reasons. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent passed a speaking order on 28.08.2014 vide ECor/Pers/HQ/CC/DA-712/13/BR rejecting the case on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment is submitted beyond 5 years which is stipulated and also on the ground that the dependent has attained majority prior to the making of application and that her father was granted full benefits pursuant to his retirement from the railway service. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2014 rejecting the case for compassionate appointment, the Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal numbered as O.A.No.1534 of 2014 to declare the said proceedings rejecting the request as contrary to the Railway Board’s Order issued vid