Compassionate employment is not a hereditary right and is provided to overcome immediate financial constraints. The consideration of change of nomination on compassionate ground is to be granted on a case-to-case basis, and the competent authority has the discretion to make a decision based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT :

MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.

1. The writ petition is in assailment of the judgement and order dated April 21, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/01039/2020 dismissing the prayer of the writ petitioner for change of nomination for the purpose of appointment of her daughter on compassionate ground.

2. One Krishna @ Krishna Goala who happened to be the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, used to work as Sr. Gangman/Trackman under Indian Railways and was lastly posted at Alipurduar Junction. The said Krishna @ Krishna Goala, after serving in such capacity for over 20 years, passed away on May 10, 2003. His normal superannuation was due on September 26, 2012.

3. Upon such death in harness, Petitioner No. 1 approached railway authorities seeking employment assistance on compassionate grounds on June 20, 2003. In pursuance of such prayer, petitioner No. 1 appeared for physical efficiency test on July 20, 2004 for the post of Trackman. She was offered the said post on compassionate ground on July 20, 2003 and asked to join the said post. The said petitioner, however, did not accept/join the said employment.

4. Subsequently, on May 4, 2005, Petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation stating her inability to work as Trackman. She expressed her willingness to work as Khalasi. At the same time petitioner No. 1 also applied before the authorities for change of nomination for appointment on compassionate ground, in favour of her daughter i.e. Petitioner No. 2. However, the prayer for change of nomination was turned down by the competent authority in view of the extant circular being GM/P/MLG dated July 16, 1991.

5. Later on, writ petitioner No. 1 again applied for change of nomination and appointment of her daughter Petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. Such prayer of the writ petitioner was however, turned down on the ground that a final decision in this respect was already taken on August 25, 2005.

6. Aggrieved by such decision of the authorities, the writ petitioner approached the tribunal by filing Original Application No. 1318/2017. The said OA was disposed of by the tribunal on November 8, 2019 remanding the matter to the authorities for consideration of the prayer of the writ petitioner.

7. Accordingly, in compliance with the directions of the tribunal, the competent authority, considered the prayer of the writ petitioner and disposed of the matter by a speaking order dated February 14, 2020 by which, the prayer of the writ petitioner seeking appointment of writ petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground, was negated. It is this rejection of the prayer of writ petitioner, through the speaking order dated February 14, 2020, which was assailed in the second Original Application before the tribunal being OA No. 350/01039/2020.

8. The learned tribunal by its order passed on April 21, 2023, dismissed OA No. 350/01039/2020, affirming the speaking order of the competent authority dated February 14, 2020. Such dismissal of OA No. 350/01039/2020 by the tribunal has been challenged in the present writ petition.

9. The impugned order of the tribunal has been assailed by the writ petitioners on the ground that the learned tribunal failed to appreciate the claim of the petitioner in view of the extant rules and circulars. The tribunal in disposing of the original application, failed to appreciate that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the speaking order dated February 14, 2020 was unfounded, bogus and motivated.

10. It is also submitted that the competent authority and the tribunal failed to appreciate that the claim of the petitioner was based on specific railway/railway board rules and circulars and dismissed the original application quite illegally and arbitrarily. The learned tribunal did not even consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to change of nomination. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that by impugned order, the tribunal wrongfully reopened