Compassionate appointment requires proof of dependency on the deceased during their lifetime and valid legal documentation.

Order

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and grant him compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. The applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records, pursuant to which the letter impugned dated 23-01-2010 (Annexure No.A-1) has been passed by the Respondent No.3 and quash the same.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider and appoint the Applicant on any suitable post on Compassionate Grounds, duly treating the Adoption-Deed dated 31-07-2000 as just and proper.

C. Issue any other and further writ, order or directions; which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

C. Award the cost of the Original Application to the Applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Balwant, aged about 19 years, son of Late Jaswant Failbus, has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 . He seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and appoint him on compassionate grounds under the Dying in Harness Rules. The applicant challenges the order dated 23.01.2010 passed by Respondent No.3, whereby his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. It is stated that Late Jaswant Failbus, who was working as a Carpenter Furnishing Grade-II in the North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, was issueless and adopted the applicant on 31.07.2000 through a registered Adoption Deed. After adoption, the applicant became the legal heir and dependent of the deceased employee. Unfortunately, Late Jaswant Failbus died on 20.06.2007. The applicant, being left without any means of livelihood, applied for compassionate appointment and submitted relevant documents including the registered Adoption Deed, death certificate, and educational certificates. However, despite the Deputy Registrar, Sadar, Gorakhpur verifying the authenticity of the Adoption Deed, the respondents, doubting the genuineness of the adoption, rejected the applicant’s claim, asserting that the adoption was suspicious as the deceased never declared the applicant’s name in official records such as the Pass Declaration Forms during his lifetime. Aggrieved by this rejection, the applicant filed the present Original Application.

3. The respondents filed a Counter Affidavit on 10.09.2010 opposing the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment. It was contended that a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 23.01.2010 demonstrates that the applicant is not entitled to compassionate appointment, and that his claim has rightly been rejected by the competent authority. It was submitted that Late Jaswant Failbus, who was employed as a Carpenter in the Mechanical Workshop, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur, never informed the Railway administration about the alleged adoption of a son, nor did he make any effort to include the applicant’s name in his service records during his lifetime. It was emphasized that every Railway employee is required to declare their dependents annually through the Pass Declaration Form; however, Late Jaswant Failbus did not mention the applicant’s name in the years 2002, 2003, or 2004, despite the adoption deed having been registered in the year 2000. The respondents further pointed out that the adoption deed surfaced only after the demise of Late Jaswant Failbus on 20.06.2007. It was also stated that the applicant was originally the son of Sri Rajesh