Compassionate appointment is a concession for dependents facing financial distress, requiring legal recognition and timely application, not merely based on claims of relationship.

Order

Brief facts of Original Application No. 01343 of 2017 are as follows:-

1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

“(i) To appoint the applicant on compassionate ground under dying in harness rules as per facts and circumstances of the case in the light of railway records and to direct the respondent No.2 for conducting enquiry against the respondent No.3 and responsible officers.

(ii) To decide the pending representation dated 19-4-2016 by reasoned and speaking order as per facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) To pass any suchy suitable order/direction as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the Original Application in favour of the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant passed away in harness on 20-01-2004 while working as an Ambulance Attendant at the Railway Hospital, Jhansi. The deceased employee had no biological children. Therefore, in 1992, he adopted the applicant (his brother's daughter) as per the customs of the Kori community in the presence of close relatives. The deceased employee applied for the registration of the applicant as his daughter in the railway records, and her name was duly registered. A copy of the deceased employee's identity card, which includes family details, and railway travel passes also identify the applicant as his daughter. Additionally, the deceased employee's ration card, prepared in 1998, lists the applicant as his daughter. The father of the applicant was in a live-in relationship during his lifetime with one Smt. Savitri (Respondent No. 3). Although Respondent No. 3 obtained a marriage certificate, the deceased employee never recorded her as his wife in the service records. Deceased employee died on 21.01.2004 thereafter, on 21-07-2004, Respondent No. 3 submitted an application to the DRM Jhansi for the payment of death-cum-retiral dues in favor of the applicant. A dispute arose between the applicant and Respondent No. 3, leading to the filing of Succession Case No. 24/2005 by Respondent No. 3 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhansi. The applicant, through her guardian, submitted a reply to the succession case on 05-08-2005, as she was a minor at that time (her date of birth being 14-03-1994). In the counter reply dated 08-09-2005 filed by the Railways in the succession case, it was admitted that Respondent No. 3 had not divorced her first husband. As such, her alleged marriage with the deceased employee and the marriage certificate appeared void ab initio under Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Respondent No. 3 allegedly submitted a false affidavit dated 24-03-2006 in the succession case and obtained the succession order on 15-12-2010.The applicant’s guardian subsequently filed Appeal No. 31/2011 before the District Judge, Jhansi, challenging the succession order. The appeal is still pending. Despite being aware of the pending appeal, the Railway Administration disbursed the post-retiral dues and pension to Respondent No. 3, allegedly concealing the facts. The applicant, upon attaining the age of majority in 2012, filed a representation dated 19-04-2016, requesting her case to be considered for payment of dues and compassionate appointment under the "Dying in Harness" rules, but this representation remains unaddressed. Furthermore, Respondent No. 3 also filed an application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by Respondent No. 2. However, Respondent No. 2 ignored the pendency of the succession appeal while making payments of post-retiral dues and pension to Respondent No. 3. No inquiry has been initiated regarding the applicant's representation or the procedural lapses in favor of Respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved by this inaction, the applicant has filed this Original Application.

3. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed the counter affidavit on 27.09.2021 and opposed