1. Claim for appointment on compassionate grounds following the voluntary retirement of a government employee declared medically unfit, which was rejected by the authorities. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14687
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Manoj Kumar Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 700 of 2025
Important Points
Compassionate appointment eligibility for employees declared medically unfit is governed by specific guidelines; if remaining service is less than three years, the General Manager is the competent authority, and courts cannot mandate relaxation of these rules for minor discrepancies.
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Headnote
(A) Compassionate Appointment - Medical Unfitness - Eligibility - Where a railway servant is declared medically unfit and has less than three years of service remaining before superannuation, the General Manager is the competent authority to decide the case as per consolidated guidelines. (Para 9)
(B) Relaxation of Rules - Discretionary Power - Request for relaxation of a few days in the count of remaining service to meet eligibility criteria cannot be acceded to if the extant rules are strictly followed. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to compassionate appointment despite his father having less than one year of service remaining at the time of medical unfitness.
(B) Relaxation of Rules - Discretionary Power - Request for relaxation of a few days in the count of remaining service to meet eligibility criteria cannot be acceded to if the extant rules are strictly followed. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to compassionate appointment despite his father having less than one year of service remaining at the time of medical unfitness.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashidhar Shukla, Chanderkant Upadhyay
For the Respondents: Shivaji Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashidhar Shukla, Chanderkant Upadhyay
For the Respondents: Shivaji Singh
Table of Contents
2. Applicant contends the rejection is arbitrary due to lack of consideration for compassionate circumstances; respondents assert compliance with service rules regarding remaining service duration upon medical retirement. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. The court observed that the remaining service of the employee was less than three years, thus the rejection order adhered to established departmental guidelines and was not arbitrary. (Para 9 )
4. Compassionate appointment requests are subject to strict adherence to departmental service duration criteria, and courts cannot compel relaxation of such mandatory administrative rules. (Para 9 )
5. The original application is dismissed as the request for compassionate appointment is devoid of merit under the governing rules. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Is an applicant entitled to compassionate appointment when the deceased or medically retired employee had less than three years of remaining service?
No. Under the applicable departmental circulars, compassionate appointment is subject to eligibility criteria, including a minimum duration of remaining service. Where service is less than three years, the administration acts within its authority by rejecting such claims according to existing guidelines. (Para 9 )
7. Can a Tribunal direct authorities to grant relaxation for compassionate appointment rules concerning service duration?
No. When the rejection of a compassionate appointment is based on transparent, reasoned application of policy and internal guidelines, and no illegality or infirmity is shown, the Tribunal lacks the authority to direct the implementation of rule relaxations. (Para 9 )
ORDER
Shri Shashidhar Shukla and Shri Chanderkant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shivaji Sigh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The present original application has been filed by the original applicant seeking following relief:
i. This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the Divisional Rail Superintendent Varanasi (Annexure No A-1)
ii. To issue an order or direction directing the respondent to consider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment relaxing the rules to the extent of one day less in count of service left.
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.
3. A compendium of the facts as narrated in the original RITU application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the office of Rail Superintendent Varanasi through which his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. Applicant has contended that the aforesaid order has been passed without application of mind and without considering the fact that the father of the applicant was first voluntarily retired on the ground of medical unfitness and subsequently died leaving behind the applicant and his family which was completely dependent upon the employee concerned for survival and livelihood. Applicant has further contended that the ground taken by the respondents to reject his case that less than one year of service was remaining when the employee was declared medically unfit, is arbitrary and uncalled for and thus by way of the present OA, he seeks quashing of the impugned order thereby directing the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds otherwise his family will suffer irreparable loss and injury.Respondents, on the other hand, have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the case of the applicant was considered by the competent authority, inquiry was made wherein it was found that when the applicant’s father was declared medically unfit, only 11 months and 29 days of service was remaining and therefore, as per the extant rules and provisions, no compassionate appointment can be granted to the applicant. Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances, the case of the applicant was rejected vide reasoned and speaking order dated 11.06.2025 which was communicated to the applicant and no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the same.Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant rebutting the averments made in the Counter Affidavit wherein almost same facts and circumstances of the case as have been narrated in the OA have been reiterated.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that father of the RITU applicant Shri Shiv Lochan Prasad was appointed in the respondents’ department on 09.09.1970 and was continuously working since then. He was declared medically unfit for Indian Railway Service in all categories on 31.07.2018 by Divisional Hospital Varanasi although he was also declared medically unfit for the Indian Railway Services in all categories by the Medical Board constituted for the said purpose on 12.07.2017 itself. Several representations were preferred by the father of the applicant seeking compassionate appointment of the applicant. However, the respondents passed the order dated 14.09.2017 of voluntary retirement of the father of the applicant w.e.f. 02.08.2017. Applicant’s father subsequently died on 18.01.2020 leaving behind the entire family. Learned counsel further argued that firstly, the respondents’ authorities delayed in deciding the applicant’s case of compassionate appointment and then, when the case was considered, the respondents rejected the s
