Case Note & Summary
The Union of India, through the Principal Chief Personnel Officer of Southern Railway, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The Tribunal had allowed an original application filed by the respondent mother, directing the grant of a second compassionate appointment to her younger son. The dispute arose from the death of the respondent’s husband, a railway employee, who died in service in 2001. The family’s elder son was granted compassionate appointment in a Group-D post in 2004, serving for 11 years until his death in 2016. Following the elder son’s death, the respondent mother began receiving two family pensions—one for her husband and one for her son. She then sought compassionate appointment for her younger son, who was about 35 years old at the time. The Railways rejected the application in August 2019, citing that the younger son was not a dependent of the deceased elder son under the Railways Rules, was not included in the elder son’s family composition register, and that the family was not in financial crisis given the two pensions. The mother challenged this rejection before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed her application and directed reconsideration. The Railways then approached the High Court. The core legal issue was whether a second compassionate appointment could be claimed when the family had already availed one such appointment and was in receipt of two pensions. The High Court, after examining the object of the compassionate appointment scheme, held that it is not a right but a measure to alleviate immediate distress caused by the sudden death of an employee. The Court found that the family had already benefited from the scheme, and the continued receipt of two pensions negated any claim of indigence. Moreover, the younger son was not a dependent of the deceased elder son. Thus, the rejection by the Railways was lawful. Consequently, the impugned Tribunal order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Purpose and Scope of Compassionate Appointment - Indian Railways (Compassionate Appointment) Scheme - The family of a deceased railway employee had already been granted one compassionate appointment upon the death of the employee in 2001; after the death of that appointee in 2016, the mother sought a second compassionate appointment for another son. The Court held that the scheme aims to mitigate distress from sudden death, not to provide successive employment. Since the younger son was not a dependent of the elder son and the family received two pensions, indigence was absent, and the rejection was proper. Held that the compassionate appointment scheme does not create a right to multiple appointments and the earlier Tribunal order was set aside. (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second compassionate appointment can be granted to a family that has already availed one compassionate appointment and is in receipt of two family pensions, when the claimant is not a dependent under the applicable rules?
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28.02.2023 set aside; no costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Compassionate appointment is a scheme to mitigate immediate distress from sudden death of an employee
- not to provide employment to all family members
- a second compassionate appointment cannot be claimed when the family has already availed one such appointment and receives two family pensions
- the claimant must be a dependent as per applicable rules
- absence of indigent circumstances disentitles the family to further compassionate appointment.
