Compassionate appointment is only available to dependents of employees who die "in harness" (while in service). If an employee is removed from service prior to death and the removal order is not quashed, the dependents are ineligible for such appointment.

Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :

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

(a) Pass an order setting aide/cancelling the impugned order being no. DCC/Comp/OA/Kol/1329/2023/Shila Das dated 15.01.2024 passed by the respondents with a direction to give appointment to the applicant no. 2 on compassionate ground under died in harness category as per the qualification of the applicant no. 2.

(b) Any other order or further order/orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may seem fit and proper.

2. Ganga Das, the husband of applicant no. 1 and the father of applicant no. 2 was appointed as a Safaiwala in Eastern Railway on 2nd July, 1980 under the Superintendent Carriage and Wagon (SCW), Tikiapara, Howrah. He was suffering from various diseases. He died on 11th April, 1994. The respondents did not pay his service benefit and retiral dues to his legal heirs. The applicant moved this Tribunal by filing an original application. The Tribunal on February 24, 2009 disposed of the Original Application No. 1324 of 2007 directing the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits to the applicant. Challenging such order, the respondent preferred WPCT 171 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, which held that the order passed by the Tribunal need not be interfered with. Railway authorities are now making payment of family pension to the wife of Late Ganga Das. Since the respondents did not consider the prayer for giving compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant no. 2, the applicant filed another Original Application No. 1329 of 2023 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal on 09.10.2023 disposed of the O.A with a direction upon the respondents to consider the representation dated 21.11.2022. The respondents on 15.01.2024 rejected the prayer of the applicant for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. Hence this O.A.

3. The applicants have based their claim on the following grounds:

I. The order passed by the respondent on 15/1/2024 is ex-facie bad in law and is a clear case of non-application of mind as respondents intentionally and deliberately did not consider that the deceased employee was in railway service when he expired and had discharged his long unblemished services for a period of 12 years. His only son, the applicant no.2 is entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground as his father died in harness.

II. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal, relied upon by the respondents, has no manner of application considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

III. The respondents were absolutely wrong in not considering that there is no time limit for applying for grant of compassionate appointment. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the High Courts delivered many judgements directing the authority to give appointment on compassionate ground under “died in harness category” ignoring the point of delay.

IV. The respondents before rejecting the claim of the applicant should have considered the fact that if the applicant No.2 was a minor at the time of death of his father on attaining the majority, he can very well apply for the compassionate appointment and the respondents cannot deny the same.

V. Before rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment the respondents should have considered the fact that there was/is no other earning member in the family of the deceased employee and the family is star