Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16258

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Veena Kothavale, Member (J)
M. Akkamma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 310/01808 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Abdul Ajees
For the Respondents: K. Boopalan

Compassionate appointment is a concession for families in financial distress, not a vested right. Railway Board instructions stating that a request 'may be considered' vest discretion in the authority to assess financial conditions, and such administrative decisions are not automatic assurances of employment.

Headnote:(A) Railway Board Circular RBE No. 08/2000 dated 18.01.2000 - Compassionate Ground Appointment - Medical incapacitation - Whether mandatory offer of appointment exists upon voluntary retirement - The phrase 'may be considered' in the RBE instruction implies the exercise of discretion based on merits and financial status, not an absolute right or a binding promise. (Paras 17, 18, 21)

(B) Compassionate Appointment - Financial condition - Assessment of - A duty is cast on the competent authority to objectively assess the financial position of the family to determine if they are in financial distress and require support. (Para 27)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a medically incapacitated Railway employee, opted for voluntary retirement under the assumption that her daughter would be granted a compassionate appointment based on RBE No. 08/2000. Her request for appointment was rejected by the authorities citing the improved financial status of the family, including pension benefits and the gainful employment of other family members. The applicant challenged these rejection orders before the Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the term 'may be considered' does not create a vested right or an assurance of employment. The authorities correctly evaluated the applicant's family financial stability, which disqualified the daughter from the compassionate scheme.

Issues: Whether the Railway administration committed a breach of promise regarding compassionate appointment and whether the rejection of the claim was contrary to RBE No. 08/2000.

Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a concession intended to provide aid to families in financial distress. The administrative instruction to 'consider' a request is not a mandate for automatic appointment, and the competent authority must independently verify the financial necessity of the claimant's family.

Result: OA dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts regarding medical invalidation and rejection of compassionate appointment claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties' arguments concerning the interpretation of railway board's rbe instructions and criteria. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. interpretation of 'may be considered' as discretionary rather than a mandatory promise. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. the obligation to assess financial stability before granting compassionate appointment. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

O R D E R

(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

In this OA, applicant is seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Chennai Division, Southern Railway, Chennai, and the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 of the Principal Chief Personnel Officer/Southern Railway, Chennai, rejecting her request for compassionate ground appointment to her daughter, and for a direction to the Respondents to provide suitable appointment in Railways on compassionate grounds to her daughter, Kumari P. Maheswari.

2. The case of the applicant is that while working as General Assistant (Peon) in the Office of Senior Operating Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai Division, she was medically examined and declared unfit in all categories of Indian Railway Services. A supernumerary post was created for her w.e.f. 06.01.2020 and she continued with her service in the same pay and scale. The applicant was informed by Sr. DPO/MAS vide Memorandum dated 07.02.2020 that in case she opts for retirement on medical grounds, her request for appointment on compassionate ground to an eligible ward may be considered in terms of RBE No. 08/2000 dated 18.01.2000. Accordingly, applicant requested for voluntary retirement as well as for compassionate ground appointment to her daughter. In response, vide letter dated 01.04.2021, the Sr. DPO, Chennai Division, informed her that her request for voluntary retirement has been considered vide Office Order dated 01/04/2021 and that her request for compassionate ground appointment to her daughter will be considered subject to fulfilling the stipulated conditions governing such appointment.

3. Though vide Office Order dated 01.04.2021, Sr. DPO/Chennai Division had terminated her service w.e.f. 05.04.2021(AN), but no order of appointment on compassionate grounds for her daughter was issued as per the RBE No. 08/2000 dated: 18.01.2000. The applicant submitted a representation dated 14/06/2021 to the 3rd respondent requesting for compassionate ground appointment to her daughter. However, vide letter dated 20.09.2021, the Sr. DPO, Chennai Division has rejected her claim. Applicant gave a representation dated 08/07/2024 to the 2nd respondent requesting for compassionate ground appointment to her daughter. The 2nd Respondent also has rejected her claim vide letter dated 09.09.2024. Hence this O.A.

4. Upon notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel Mr. K. Boopalan and filed their reply statement contending that while working as a General Assistant in the office of Sr. DOM/MAS, the applicant was declared medically unfit in all categories. Consequently, she was placed in a supernumerary post. As the applicant had requested for voluntary retirement from her service, her request was accepted by the Competent Authority and consequently her services were terminated effect from 05.04.2021 (AN). The applicant submitted a requisition seeking Compassionate Ground Appointment for her daughter, Smt. P. Maheswari. In response, the Railway Administration issued a letter dated 01.04.2021 through proper channel stating that her request for compassionate ground appointment for her daughter would be considered, subject to the fulfilment of the stipulated conditions governing such appointments. The applicant submitted the application dated 14.06.2021 in the prescribed form requesting compassionate ground appointment for her daughter.

5. The comp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16258

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALVeena Kothavale, Member (J)M. Akkamma – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA No. 310/01808 of 2024

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Veena Kothavale, Member (J)
M. Akkamma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 310/01808 of 2024