Compassionate appointment is discretionary and not an inherent right, and it requires valid proof of adoption and mitigating circumstances to prove entitlement.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in its PB/CS/30/MAS/Misc/2016/Vol-1, dated 27.01.2017 and 14.02.2017 as confirmed by the order of the 3rd respondent in O.A.No.923/2017, dated 14.08.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein on compassionate grounds in any suitable posts with all attendant and consequential benefits.)

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1.Challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No. 923 of 2017, dated 14.08.2018, confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in PB/CS/30/MS/Misc/2016/Vol-1, dated 27.01.2017 and 14.02.2017, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner herein is the adopted son of late Selvaraj who worked as Gangman in the Railways, who died in harness, while in service on 24.12.2002. The petitioner has made a representation to the department in the 2003 seeking compassionate appointment for the death of the said Selvaraj. The representation was rejected by the respondent on 08.07.2003. Subsequently, the mother of the deceased employee namely Annammal has filed a suit before the Civil Court claiming legal heirship and for terminal benefits of the deceased employee. The suit ended in favour of the said Annammal, the mother of the deceased employee. Thereafter after a lapse of 13 years on 18.03.2016, the said Annammal has sent representation for compassionate appointment to the respondent. The said request was rejected by the respondent-department. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an application in O.A.No 923 of 2017 and the said application was also dimissed as against the writ petitioner herein and hence the present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of adopted son to the deceased employee, namely D.Selvaraj.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is the adopted son of late D.Selvaraj who worked as Gangman with the respondent authorities and died in harness while in service on 24.12.2002. The petitioner is the brother''s son of the deceased employee, his name has been entered in the service register and Medical records of the said deceased Selvaraj.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner''s grandmother Annammal (mother of Selvaraj) filed O.S.No. 117 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam declaring herself to be the legal heir of Late Selvaraj and for consequential injunction to the railway authorities not to disburse the family pension and terminal benefits to one Rani, who claimed to the wife of the deceased. The said Rani was also impleaded as 6th respondent in the said Suit. The said suit was dismissed by the lower court. Challeging the said order, the petitioner''s grandmother had filed A.S.No. 18/2014 before the Sub Court, Arakkonam. The lower appellate Court, after detailed consideration of documents and evidence, has set aside the above decree and concluded that the petitioner''s grandmother Annammal alone is entitled to family pension and other terminal benefits and also concluded that the said Rani was not the legal heir of the deceased Selvaraj, therefore she was not entitled any benefits of Late Selvaraj.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that subsequent to the favarouble decree, the petitioner''s grandmother being the legal heir of the deceased Selvaraj, requested the respondent department to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The said request was rejected by the 2nd respondent by orders dated 27.01.2017 and 14.02.2017 on the ground that though an adopted son was entitled to seek compassiionate appointment as per the Railway Board Circulars, no proof