(Reserved on 15.12.2025)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the_01^st day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Original Application No. 126 of 2025

1. Champa Devi aged about 54 years, W/o Late Raj Bahadur (Since died Ex. Trackman SSE/ Railway/ NCR/ Prayagraj.

2. Manoj Kumar Yadav aged 35 about years, S/o Late Raj Bahadur Yadav (Ex Trackman).

Both Residence of Village Taragaon Post Handiya District Prayagraj Pin-221503. ……….. Applicants.

By Advocate: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh.

Versus

1. UOI through General Manager North Central Railway, Prayagraj.

2. Divisional Railway Manager North Central Railway Prayagraj.

3. Divisional Personnel Officer North Central Railway Prayagraj.

……….. Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh.

Order Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

2. The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking redressal against the rejection of their claim for compassionate appointment. They contend that the impugned orders dated 06.11.2023, 26.12.2023 and 13.02.2024 passed by respondent no.2/3 are arbitrary and illegal, and that the respondents have failed to consider the financial distress of the bereaved family. Accordingly, the instant Original Application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“I. Issue a suitable order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 06.11.2023, 26.12.2023 and 13.02.2024 passed by respondent no.2/3 (Annexure No. 1).

II. Issue a suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and appoint the applicant no.2 on compassionate ground forthwith on any of the group C or D post in the departments of respondents.

III. Issue any other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

IV. Award the cost of application in favor of the applicants.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of applicant no.1, late Raj Bahadur, was working as a permanent Trackman under SSE/P.Way/NCR/Prayagraj. His due date of retirement was 31.01.2028, but unfortunately he expired on 18.09.2023 due to dengue while in service. He left behind his widow Champa Devi, one son Manoj Kumar Yadav (applicant no.2), and two married daughters. After his death, the widow submitted all requisite documents seeking compassionate appointment for her son Manoj Kumar Yadav, supported by affidavits and no-objection certificates of the daughters. The claim was rejected by the respondents vide orders dated 06.11.2023, 26.12.2023 and 13.02.2024 on the ground that the son was above 30 years of age, married, and not dependent, and that retiral dues and family pension had already been paid. Aggrieved, the applicants approached this Tribunal challenging the rejection orders and seeking appointment of applicant no.2 on Group C/D post under dying-in-harness rules.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned orders dated 06.11.2023, 26.12.2023 and 13.02.2024 have been passed arbitrarily without considering the financial crisis of the bereaved family. The widow Champa Devi is 40% handicapped, aged about 54 years, with only 5 biswa of agricultural land, and belongs to the OBC category. She has no independent source of livelihood and is dependent upon her son Manoj Kumar Yadav, who is unemployed. The rejection of his claim solely on the ground that he is married and above 30 years of age is contrary to the Railway Board’s memorandum dated 08.07.2014, which permits compassionate appointment to any child of the deceased employee irrespective of marital status, provided he or she becomes the breadwinner of the family. It was further submitted that the normal recruitment age for OBC candidates is 36 years and relaxation is available in cases of compassionate appointment