Compassionate appointment eligibility must be assessed independently for each dependent; the misconduct or rejection of one family member (such as submitting a fake certificate) cannot be used to automatically disqualify another otherwise eligible dependent in the absence of a specific statutory or policy provision.

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against impugned order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure A-4) whereby the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The applicant seeks direction to the respondents to declare the applicant as eligible and subsequently appoint the applicant to the post of Full Time Pointsmen on compassionate ground as per policy (Annexure A-6).

2. Delay of 746 days in filing the Original Application stands condoned vide order dated 04.04.2025 in M.A.No. 2644/2023.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the mother of the applicant, Smt. Sulochna, was employed as Full Time Pointsman in the Operating Department of Northern Railways, Ambala Division, and was posted at Railway Station Kauli, Patiala. She died in harness on 14.01.2015 due to illness, leaving behind two children, namely, her son Anup Kumar and the applicant. The death certificate has been placed on record as Annexure A-1.

4. The applicant pleads that after the death of the sole earning member, the family was left in financial distress. Though the applicant was a married daughter, she claims that she was residing with her mother, was taking care of her during her illness, and was financially dependent upon her. It is further pleaded that the applicant's brother, Anup Kumar, had initially applied for compassionate appointment but his claim was rejected on the ground that he had submitted a bogus certificate, resulting in forfeiture of his claim. The rejection letter dated 28.08.2017 has been annexed as Annexure A-2.

5. Subsequently, the applicant herself submitted an application dated 04.10.2021 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the respondents rejected her request vide order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure A-4) on the ground that her brother's claim had already been rejected vide letter dated 28.08.2017 (Annexure A-2) and that no fresh ground existed for reconsideration. The applicant's application dated 04.10.2021 and the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 are annexed as Annexures A-3 and A-4, respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant served a legal notice/representation dated 16.04.2022 (Annexure A-5), requesting reconsideration of her claim. According to the applicant, no action was taken by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the rejection of the applicant's claim is contrary to Master Circular No.16 (Annexure A-6) governing compassionate appointments. It is contended that a married daughter is not disentitled from seeking compassionate appointment merely on account of her marital status, provided she otherwise fulfils the prescribed eligibility conditions. Reliance has been placed upon Shreejith G. v. Director of Education , (2012) 7 SCC 248.

7. It is further submitted that the respondents have rejected the applicant's claim solely because her brother's candidature for compassionate appointment had earlier been rejected on account of submission of a bogus educational certificate. The applicant asserts that such rejection amounts to penalising one family member for the alleged misconduct of another, which is impermissible in law. Reliance is placed upon Smt. Sushila Bauri & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (WPCT No.249 of 2013, decided on 04.07.2013). It is also contended that the applicant possesses the prescribed educational qualification and was financially dependent upon the deceased employee. The impugned order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure A-4) is alleged to have been passed without independently considering her eligibility under the applicable policy and is stated to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. The respondents oppose the Original Application primarily on the grounds that the applicant has concealed material facts and that the Original Application