Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 864
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, JJ
Union Of India, Through The General Manager - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rinky Sharma, Daughter Of (Late) Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma, - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19514/2024
Decided On : 11-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kamwar
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Choudhary with Mr. Bharat Singh Bhati and Mr. Hemraj Bairwa
Married daughters are eligible for compassionate appointment; non-speaking orders that affect rights violate natural justice.
Headnote:
(A) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Quashing of order - Compassionate appointment - Respondent, daughter of deceased employee, applied for compassionate appointment after father's death - Request rejected as she was a married daughter; Tribunal remanded for reconsideration based on Full Bench decision allowing married daughters' eligibility - Original rejection order was non-speaking and violated natural justice principles. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 6)
(B) Principles of natural justice - A non-speaking order that adversely affects rights must be set aside as it fails to provide adequate reasoning or justification for the decision taken. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The employee was a permanent staff member of North Western Railway who passed away, leaving behind his daughter as the sole survivor. The daughter's application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the grounds of her marital status. The Tribunal found the rejection order to be non-speaking and remanded the case for reconsideration.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for reconsideration was upheld as there was no legal or factual error in their order.
Issues: The main issues included whether a married daughter can be considered for compassionate appointment and the validity of the non-speaking order rejecting the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that married daughters are eligible for compassionate appointment, referencing the Full Bench decision, and held that a non-speaking order lacks the necessary justification and violates natural justice principles.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
- The petition challenges the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. (!) (!) [1]
- The deceased employee was a permanent employee of North Western Railway who died on 24.08.2019 while serving as Cipher-Operator; the respondent, his sole surviving family member and daughter, applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected on 08.01.2020. (!) [2]
- The Tribunal accepted the respondent's Original Application and remanded the matter for reconsideration of compassionate appointment based on merits as per executive instructions and guidelines. (!) [2]
- The appellant contends that the married daughter is ineligible for compassionate appointment as her husband is employed. [3]
- The respondent asserts eligibility for compassionate appointment as the daughter of the deceased employee. [4]
- The Tribunal did not direct appointment but remanded for consideration as per policy, guidelines, and instructions, finding married daughters eligible. [5]
- The rejection order dated 08.01.2020 is non-speaking, merely stating ineligibility without reasons, rendering it violative of natural justice principles as it affects civil consequences. [6]
- The Tribunal rightly remitted the matter for fresh consideration per policy, guidelines, and instructions. [6]
- No legal or factual error exists in the Tribunal's order; the writ petition is dismissed. [7]
- Married daughters are eligible for compassionate appointment. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]
- Non-speaking orders adversely affecting rights violate natural justice and must be set aside for lack of reasoning. [judgement_act_referred]
Order :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
2. The brief facts are that father of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘employee’) was permanent employee of North Western Railway. The employee expired on 24.08.2019 while serving as Cipher-Operator. The respondent was the sole surviving member of family of the employee and applied for a compassionate appointment. The request was rejected vide order dated 08.01.2020. The respondent served a legal notice dated 13.01.2022. The Original Application (O.A.) filed by the respondent was accepted. Relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Reference No.1/2022 : Smt. Heena Sheikh vs. State of Rajasthan dated 13.09.2022, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to consider the compassionate appointment of the respondent on the basis of the evaluation arrived on merits as per the parameters stipulated in the executive instructions and guidelines. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent is the sole surviving member of family of the employee but she is married daughter, her husband is employed and she is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The grievance raised is that the Tribunal has issued direction to give her appointment.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is daughter of the deceased and is eligible for compassionate appointment. It is contended that married daughter of the deceased employee is entitled for compassionate appointment, has been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Heena Sheikh (supra).
5. The grievance raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal has issued direction for appointing the respondent, lacks merit. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Heena Sheikh (supra) holding that married daughters are eligible for consideration of the compassionate appointment. The matter was remanded to consider the request for compassionate appointment as per the procedure prescribed in the policy, guidelines and instructions.
6. Another aspect is that the communication dated 08.01.2020 rejecting the request of the respondent for compassionate appointment is a non-speaking order. It only communicates that competent authority has not found the respondent eligible for compassionate appointment. The order passed rejecting the request has civil consequences and cannot be sustained being violative of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal has rightly remitted the matter for consideration of request for compassionate appointment as per the policy, guidelines and instructions.
7. There is no legal or factual error in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. All pending application(s) stand dismissed.
