(Reserved on 17.11.2025)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad ****

Original Application No.1330/2018 This is the 17^th Day of December, 2025.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Shankar Lal Vishwakarma S/o Late Sri Ram Dulare Vishwakarma R/o Mohalla-Ram Naga r (Near Primary School), Post-Urma, City and District-Etawah.

………..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Arun Kumar Soni Versus

1. Union of North India through General Manager Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad.

2. The Divisional Personnel Manager, North Central Railway o/o D.R.M., Allahabad.

3. The Section Engineer, North Central Railway ( . . .), Etawah.

……… Respondents By Advocate: Shri Shivaji Singh ΟΗΕ

O R D E R

Heard Shri Arun Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shivaji Singh, learned counsel for the respondents

2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-

(a) To quash the impugned order dated 07/08/2018 passed by Divisional Personnel Officer N.C.R.. Allahabad in the office of Divisional Railway Manager, N.C.R., Allahabad and allow the applicant to appoint as per his qualification in compassionate appointment.

(b) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant for the post as per his qualification.”

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the father of the applicant Late Ram Dulare Vishwakarma, who was working as Bond Fitter Grade-III under Respondent No.3, died on 24.08.2003 leaving behind his widow and several children including the applicant. Initially, the mother of the applicant applied for compassionate appointment in favour of the elder son, Mahendra, but he was not found suitable due to illiteracy. The mother was thereafter offered appointment as Safaiwala in 2006 but she declined on the ground of illiteracy and ill-health (leprosy). Later on, in 2009 she requested that compassionate appointment be considered for the present applicant, who is High School passed. The applicant pursued several representations and also obtained an order from this Tribunal in O.A. No.1388/2015 on 03.11.2017 directing him to file a fresh representation. He accordingly submitted a fresh representation along with High School Certificate showing his date of birth as 14.01.1996 and affidavits of his mother and himself. However, the respondents rejected his claim on 07.08.2018 on the ground of conflicting dates of birth mentioned in earlier documents. The applicant contends that the High School Certificate is the only legally acceptable proof of date of birth and that denial of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and illegal.

4. By filing counter affidavit dated 30.09.2019, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there are regarding the glaring contradictions applicant’s date of birth. According to the affidavit of the applicant’s mother dated 26.12.2003, the applicant’s date of birth was 13.02.1985 and educational qualification was “Class-II passed”. Later, during enquiry, the Junior High School record reflected date of birth as 01.01.1989, whereas the High School Marksheet of 2014 shows 14.01.1996. The respondents also contended that such wide variations (of 11 years) render the applicant’s claim doubtful and unreliable. Further, a job was already offered to the widow (mother of the applicant) in 2006 to tide over immediate financial crisis, but she refused to join. Therefore, the purpose of compassionate appointment stands exhausted and the claim raised after nearly 12 years of the employee’s death cannot be entertained and instant OA is liable to be dismissed.

5. In rejoinder, the applicant reiterates that the only legally admissible proof of age is the High School Certificate showing date of birth as 14.01.1996 and that the earlier dates mentioned by the illiterate mother were due to ignorance. It is contended that the respondents ignored the correct document and relied on irrelevant records.