Compassionate appointment is a welfare-based statutory entitlement that cannot be waived or curtailed by compromise agreements signed during a claimant's minority, nor is it strictly barred by time given the flexible discretion inherent in administrative guidelines governing such matters.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 298/2018 (Richa Varun vs. Union of India & Anr.), whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application and declined the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

2. The foundational facts are not in dispute. Late Shri Mahesh Dutt, an employee of the respondent-Railways holding the post of Stock Verifier in the Accounts Section (DRM Office), Bikaner, expired on 24.12.1997. It is also not disputed that his first wife, Smt. Sheela Devi, had been lawfully divorced on 21.07.1990.

3. Thereafter, the mother of the present petitioner, Smt. Shova Devi, became the legally wedded second wife of the deceased employee, and the petitioner is the sole daughter born out of the said wedlock. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that Smt. Shova Devi expired on 19.02.2025.

4. Disputes arose between the families of the first wife and the second wife with regard to succession, culminating in a succession decree dated 04.10.2007 passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 60/1998 (Shova Dutt & Anr. vs. Pawan @ Rajesh & Ors.). The said decree, based on a compromise, apportioned the movable and immovable properties and has been reproduced in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.

4.1. The denial of compassionate appointment primarily rests upon the said compromise, wherein the petitioner's mother had agreed that compassionate appointment be granted to Raj Kumar @Raju, the son of the divorced wife.

4.2. However, it is equally undisputed that the candidature of the said Raj Kumar @ Raju was subsequently rejected by the respondents vide order dated 30.08.2013 on the ground of over-age and ineligibility, and the said rejection was never challenged.

4.3. The learned Tribunal, while extensively considering the succession decree, dismissed the original application solely on the ground that the petitioner's mother had relinquished the claim for compassionate appointment under the compromise, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was a minor at that time and her independent right had not crystallized.

5. In light of the above, the following issues arise for consideration before this Court:

(i) Whether a claim for compassionate appointment, made after a considerable lapse of time, can still be sustained in law; and

(ii) Whether the compromise decree entered into between the families can bind the petitioner, who was a minor at the relevant time, in respect of her independent claim for compassionate appointment.

6. Learned counsel for the Union of India, Mr. Kirta Ram Meghwal throwing light on the law on time limit for making compassionate appointment has taken this Court to the Master circular on compassionate appointment issued on 22.02.2024 where the time limit has been prescribed under Clause III, which reads as follows:-

“III. Time Limit for consideration on CGA by Railway:-

i. All requests for CGA submitted within the prescribed period of 5 years from the date of death/medical invalidation /2 years of attaining majority for ward registered earlier as minor, shall be finalized/decided by DRMs/CWMs/HODs/ Competent Authority. Such cases not received within this period of 5 years will be considered as per the following schedule by the authority indicated against each:-