2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16895
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Girja Shankar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.325/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ravi Sharma
For the Respondents: Shri Ram Chandra Sahu
The denial of compassionate appointment is valid when the applicant's parent has less than three years of service remaining, necessitating General Manager's approval.
Headnote:This judgment arises from Original Application No.325/2023 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning a denial of compassionate appointment based on claimed financial distress following the applicant’s father's medical incapacitation. The court found the denial proper as the applicant’s father had less than three years of service remaining, enforcing the Railway Board's guidelines, which necessitate prior General Manager approval for such appointments. The court emphasized the required criteria and the adherence of the respondents to the procedural norms in denying the request. The relief sought for quashing the denial order was ultimately dismissed as lacking merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts concerning the compassionate appointment request based on financial distress. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the compassionate appointment rejection. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. court observations confirming adherence to guidelines regarding compassionate appointments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final ruling dismissing the application for compassionate appointment. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER
Heard Shri Ravi Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ram Chandra Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Original Application, filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeks the following main reliefs:-
“(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 issued by the Divisional Personnel Of icer, N.C. Railway, Agra Cantt (Respondent No. 5) denying appointment on compassionate ground to the applicant despite the facts that father of the applicant Late Radhey Lal, Helper Khalasi/S&T under the SSE/S&T/Mathura Jn. was declared completely medically incapacitated for further service in any post on Railway by the A.C.M.S., N.C.R., Mathura Jn. on 23.12.2013 and orders were issued by the CMS/NCR, Agra Cantt on 30.01.2015. Accordingly as per Railway Board's orders the applicant is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on first priority basis in Group 'C' post. As such the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
ii. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the General Manager, N.C. Railway, Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on the compassionate ground on first priority basis in Group 'C' post as per Railway Board's orders on the grounds as mentioned in Para 8.1 of the relief, so that the applicant may get justice and may survive alongwith his family members.
iii. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the D.R.M./N.C.R., Agra Cantt. (Respondent No. 4) to make payment of pension and other retiral dues of Radhey Lal w.e.f. 23.12.2013 when he was treated as retired from Railway Service on medical ground with arrears and interest thereon.”
3. The brief facts of the case as reflected form the Original Application are as under:-
(i) The applicant’s father Radhey Lal was appointed as a Helper Khalasi in the Railways on 20.01.1985. He worked under the Sr. Section Engineer/S&T/N.C. Railway, Mathura Junction.
(ii) On 23.12.2013, Radhey Lal was diagnosed with paraplegia (complete paralysis of the lower body). The Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, NCR, Mathura Jn., declared him medically unfit for all railway services.
(iii) Although he was medically unfit for duty, the Railways delayed issuing the order retiring him on medical grounds. The final order was issued only on 30.01.2015, a day before his superannuation on 31.01.2015.
(iv) Radhey Lal did not receive his salary or any other financial benefits from the date he was declared medically unfit i.e. on 23.12.2013 till his official retirement i.e. on 31.01.2015, which caused significant financial hardship for his family.
(v) After his retirement, the father of the applicant started receiving a pension from 01.02.2015. However, grievance of his family is that the said benefits should have been given to them from the date when the father of the applicant declared as a patient of ‘Paraplegia’ on 23.12.2013 and was unable to stand on his own legs.
(vi) On 18.02.2018 the father of the applicant died leaving behind his widow, three minor children and the applicant, Girija Shankar, to manage the family. The family’s only source of income is a family pension of ₹13,000 per month, which will be reduced by 50% after seven years.
(vii) The applicant submitted a request for compassionate appointment as per Railway Board guidelines. He claimed that the family’s financial situation justified his employment.
(viii) A Welfare Inspector conducted an inqui

