Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and cannot be granted if the deceased employee's initial appointment was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, rendering the foundation of the claim void.

O R D E R

PER: - MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:

“a) To quash/set aside the order dated 9.1.2020 passed by the General Manager DRM Sonpur whereby the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

b) To pass an order/ orders commanding the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground as his father while working under Sr. Section Engineering Rail Path, Sonpur died on 21.8.2018 leaving behind 3 daughters, 2 sons and widow.

c) To pass order(s) commanding the respondents to make payment of all the retiral benefit for which the petitioner’s father was entitled for.

d) To pass such order(s) as your learned Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in his OA, are delineated and discussed herein under :-

The land of the applicant’s father, bearing Survey No. 676 (area 125 decimals) and Survey No. 680 (area 11 decimals), was acquired by the Central Railway, Hajipur.

Pursuant to such acquisition, and in accordance with the policy decision of the Railway Board, the applicant’s father was provided employment under the rehabilitation scheme. He was accordingly appointed and joined service on 13.03.2010 as a Group-D employee under the Senior Section Engineer (Rail Path), Sonpur.

While in service, the applicant’s father died on 21.08.2018. The deceased employee left behind the following dependents:- Manorama Devi (wife), aged about 38 years, Amit Kumar (son), aged about 24 years (applicant), Sunit Kumar (son), aged about 21 years, Geeta Kumari (unmarried daughter), aged about 18 years, Suman Kumari (unmarried daughter), aged about 16 years and Poonam Kumari (unmarried daughter), aged about 14 years.

After the death of the employee, the applicant’s mother submitted an affidavit dated 01.10.2018 before the Executive Magistrate, Sonpur, requesting that the applicant be appointed on compassionate grounds. The applicant submitted a duly filled application form for compassionate appointment to the competent authority through registered post on 20.12.2019. The said application was rejected by the concerned authority, i.e., the General Manager (Personnel), DRM Office, Sonpur, vide order dated 09.01.2020, which was communicated to the applicant.

The rejection was primarily based on the allegation that the initial appointment of the applicant’s father was secured on the basis of incorrect or false information/documents. The applicant categorically denies the said allegation and submits that the land acquisition award was prepared after due verification and consideration of all relevant documents, and only thereafter, the employment was granted in accordance with Railway policy.

It is further stated that the applicant’s father, Late Ganni Rai, and his brother Chandrika Rai had mutually partitioned their ancestral land. A Panchayati settlement confirmed that the land under Survey No. 680 belonged to the applicant’s father, whereas other land fell to the share of Chandrika Rai. Based on such settlement and verification, the land acquisition award was finalized and the applicant’s father was validly appointed in service.

3.1 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the rejection of the applicant’s application for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to law, as it is based on unsubstantiated allegations regarding the initial appointment of the deceased employee. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the appointment of the applicant’s father was made strictly in accordance with the Railway Board’s policy after due verification of land acquisition records and supporting documents. The respondents cannot now, after several years and after the death of the employee, question the validity of such appointment without any cogent proof.

3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that even a