Compassionate appointment limited to immediate financial distress post-employee death; 23-year delay disqualifies claim despite valid adoption.

ORDER

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-

“(i) This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 passed by respondents.

(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant for grant of compassionate appointment by inviting relevant documents from the applicant and sent his case before the committee. The respondents were also directed to consider the case of applicant as per extent rules applicable at the time of first application given by the applicant i.e. applicable in the year 2009 and considering the circumstances of that time.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was adopted by his uncle, late Rajendra Prasad (deceased employee), through a registered adoption deed dated 13.08.2001. Rajendra Prasad was working as Helper (Khalasi) at Diesel Loco Shed, Jhansi, and died in harness on 01.07.2002. A succession certificate was issued on 10.08.2007 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi, recognizing the applicant as the lawful successor to the estate of the deceased on the basis of the registered adoption deed. After attaining majority, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 07.04.2010. His claim was rejected by the respondents, which resulted in multiple rounds of litigation before the Hon’ble High Court as well as this Tribunal. On earlier occasions, this Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s claim keeping in view the registered MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA adoption deed and the succession certificate. Despite repeated judicial directions, the respondents again rejected the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment by passing the impugned order dated 14.08.2023, ignoring the adoption deed and succession certificate. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, stating therein that Rajendra Prasad, son of Shri Kishan Lal, was working as Helper/Khalasi under the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel), Jhansi and was unmarried. During his lifetime, he executed a registered adoption deed dated 13.08.2001 in favour of the applicant and subsequently died on 01.07.2002. After his death, a dispute arose between the applicant and the deceased employee’s widowed sister regarding settlement dues, which was decided by the competent civil court by issuing a succession certificate in favour of the applicant and accordingly, settlement dues were paid to him. The respondents further stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 07.04.2010 but his claim was rejected as per rules, since the deceased employee had never declared the applicant as his dependent for railway facilities during his lifetime. It was also found that the applicant continued to reside with his biological father, who himself was a railway employee and had availed railway benefits in respect of the applicant. The applicant challenged the rejection order before this Tribunal in several rounds of litigation. In compliance with directions issued by the Tribunal, the matter was reconsidered on multiple occasions and enquiries were conducted including an enquiry by the Welfare Inspector. The Welfare Inspector reported that th