SHRI ANIL PANDEY vs M/o Railways

OA No. 200/00693/2018
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR .

Original Application No. 693 of 2018

th
This Friday, the 16 day of October, 2026

HON’BLE SHRI RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Shri Anil Pandey, Aged about 69 years, S/o late Shri Om Shankar
Pandey R/o House No. 1086, Street No.2, Bai Ka Bagicha, Jabalpur
(M.P.). 482002
-Applicant

By Adv: Shri Amardeep Gupta, proxy counsel for Shri Munish Saini
V E R S U S

1. Union of India, through the General Manager, West Central Railway,
Indira Market, Jabalpur (M.P) 482001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.P)
482001.
3. Chief Personnel Officer, West Central Railway, Indira Market,
Jabalpur (M.P) 482001.
4. Sr Divisional Personnel Officer, West Central Railway, Jabalpur
(M.P) 482001.
……..Respondents
By Adv: Shri D S Baghel

1

2026.10.16
VISHAL
16:46:17
KUSHWAH
+05'30'

OA No. 200/00693/2018


O R D E R
By Mallika Arya, AM

Through this Original Application, the applicant is seeking
directions to the respondents to grant appointment to his son on
compassionate grounds, after his medical decategorisation in view of the
policy and guidelines of the respondents.
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicant was
working as Additional Chief Ticket Inspector (ACTI) in Jabalpur
Division under the administrative control of erstwhile Central Railway
(now West Central Railway). He was medically de-categorised on
05.03.1998 (Annexure A/1) while working as ACTI and was retired on
Medical Grounds on 12.04.1999 (Annexure A/2). After retirement,
applicant approached Divisional Administration for grant of
appointment to his son Ankush Pandey on Compassionate Grounds, in
light of policy for medically de-categorized employees. All
applications/representations submitted by the applicant since medical
de-categorization are annexed as Annexure A/3. The then
DRM/Jabalpur called for the entire departmental case file and after
perusal, gave a detailed Note dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure A/4)
directing Respondent No.4 (Sr. DPO WCR) for considering the case for
2

2026.10.16
VISHAL
16:46:17
KUSHWAH
+05'30'

OA No. 200/00693/2018
appointment of applicant's son in Class-IV category on compassionate
grounds. In compliance of the same, Sr. DPO JBP forwarded the matter
to CPO/WCR. Instead of considering case as per Railway Board’s
guidelines and DRM's Note, Chief Personnel Officer did not take
adequate steps. The applicant was under constant medical treatment and
is a 69 years old Senior Citizen. He again approached Respondent No.1
vide detailed Representation dated 15.07.2017 (Annexure A/5) praying
for compassionate appointment for his son on sympathetic and
humanitarian grounds. Respondent No.3 after considering
representation, forwarded the matter vide letter dated 28.07.2017
(Annexure A/6) to Sr. DPO, Jabalpur for necessary action in light of
representation dated 15.07.2017 and Note dated 30.08.2010 of DRM.
However, no action was taken by Respondent No.4.
3. The respondents have filed reply wherein it has been submitted that
while working as ACTI, the applicant was medically examined and
found unfit in his working category and was medically de-categorised
on 05.03.1998 (Annexure A/1). After being declared unfit in BEE-TWO
category vide order dated 05.03.1998 (Annexure A/1), he was called by
Screening Committee for an alternate post. The Screening Committee
found him fit for post of Head Clerk. He was intimated vide letter dated
29.01.1999 (Annexure R/1) to appear for an interview on 12.02.1999.
3

2026.10.16
VISHAL
16:46:17
KUSHWAH
+05'30'

OA No. 200/00693/2018
He remained absent and failed to make any communication. Another
opportunity was given to him vide letter dated 01.04.1999 (Annexure
R/2) to appear on 12.04.1999. However, he did not attend. The applicant
was informed vide letter dated 05/18.05.1999 (Annexure R/3) that since
he is not willing to accept the alternative job, therefore it was decided to
retire him w.e.f. 12.04.1999. He was asked to submit his objections
within 15 days. As no objection was received from the applicant, he was
finally retired w.e.f. 12.04.1999. The DRM vide Note dated 30.08.2010
(Annexure A/4), recommended the case of the applicant for offering job
to his son Ankush Pandey and directed Personnel Branch to examine if
he satisfied the other requirements before forwarding his case to
Headquarters. His case was sent to Headquarters vide letter dated
11.09.2012 (Annexure R-4). Chief Personnel Officer vide letter dated
20.06.2013 (Annexure R-5) rejected the case observing the following in
light of Medical Certificate of CMO dated 05.03.1998 (Annexure R-6) :
"He has been declared medically unfit for B-2 as ACTI and fit for
B-2 for the job where strenuous and train running working is not
involved and fit in B-2 for sedentary job."
The applicant was unfit in B-2 (safety) category. However, he was
fit in same medical category i.e. B-2 for a sedentary job. Hence, his
ward could not be granted appointment on compassionate grounds.
4

2026.10.16
VISHAL
16:46:17
KUSHWAH
+05'30'

OA No. 200/00693/2018
Railway Board vide letter dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure R-7) clarified
that cases of compassionate appointment are to be dealt keeping in view
as follows: "A Railway employee can be termed as medically
decategorised only when he/she has been declared unfit in his/her
original post as well as original medical category but fit in lower
medical category/post.
As applicant was declared fit in his original medical category (B-
2), he has not been treated as medically decategorised, as per rules.
Hence his ward is not entitled for appointment on compassionate
ground. The issue has also been decided by this Tribunal in OA No.
200/00239/2017 vide order dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure R-8). The
Original Application filed by the applicant is not within the limitation
period. Further the applicant has not made his son Ankush Pandey a
party, for whom compassionate appointment has been sought.
4. We have considered the matter, heard the counsel and perused the
pleadings and documents annexed with the Original Application.
5. It is a fact on record (Annexure A/1) that on 05.03.1998, the
applicant was found medically unfit under the BEE-TWO category for
the post of ACTI and found fit under BEE-TWO for an assignment
where strenuous work was not involved, i.e. only sedentary job.
Thereafter, he was called by Screening Committee for an alternate job.
5

2026.10.16
VISHAL
16:46:17
KUSHWAH
+05'30'

OA No. 200/00693/2018
The Screening Committee found him fit for post of Head Clerk. He was
called for interview vide letter dated 29.01.1999 (Annexure R/1) and
letter dated 01.04.1999 (Annexure R/2). He remained absent on both the
occasions and failed to communicate the reasons for his absence with
the respondents. As he failed to accept an alternate job, his case was
closed on 12.04.1999 and he was retired on medical grounds on
12.04.1999. The applicant is seeking compassionate appointment for his
son under medically decategorised category.
6. As per Railway Board's Master Circular and clarification dated
12.11.2014 (Annexure R/7) it has been clarified as follows:
"A Railway employee can be termed as medically decategorised only
when he/she has been declared unfit in his/her original post as well as
original medical category but fit in lower medical category/post.
Compassionate appointment cases are to be dealt keeping in view the
same."
7. In the present case, as per CMO’s certificate dated 05.03.1998
(Annexure R/6), applicant is unfit in B-2 as ACTI (where strenuous train
running is involved) however he is fit in B-2 for sedentary job. Since his
medical category remains B-2, there has been no downgrading to lower
category like C-1 or C-2. Therefore, as per rules, applicant is not a
medically decategorised employee. He is an employee who is unfit for a
6

2026.10.16
VISHAL
16:46:17
KUSHWAH
+05'30'

OA No. 200/00693/2018
particular post but fit for another post in same medical category.
Respondents offered him an alternate post of Head Clerk in same
category (B-2) vide Annexure R/1 and Annexure R/2. The Applicant
refused to appear and did not accept the alternate job.
8. We take note of the DRM's Note dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure
A/4). It was only a recommendation to examine and consider the case as
per extant rules. It does not confer any right on the applicant. When case
was examined by CPO, it was rejected vide letter dated 20.06.2013
(Annexure R/5) in light of medical certificate of CMO and rules on the
subject with the following observation:
The medical category of Shri Anil Kumar Pandey is unchanged.
In such case, there is no provision as per rules to grant compassionate
appointment.
In view of such observations, the case was returned by
headquarters to the Division.
9. This Tribunal in OA 200/00239/2017 dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure
R/8) has taken a similar view holding as follows: “ having found fit in
same medical category does not entitle ward for compassionate
appointment .”
7

2026.10.16
VISHAL
16:46:17
KUSHWAH
+05'30'

OA No. 200/00693/2018
10. Further, the son of the applicant Shri Ankush Pandey, for whom
appointment has been sought, has not been impleaded as a party. Hence
the Original Application suffers from non-joinder of the necessary party.
11. Since applicant’s case has not been considered under the medically
decategorised category, the case for grant of compassionate appointment
of his son has been rightly rejected by the respondents. In view of above,
we find no infirmity in action of respondents. Hence, the Original
Application being devoid of merits is dismissed. No costs.

( Mallika Arya ) ( Rajinder Singh Dogra )
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
8

2026.10.16
VISHAL
16:46:17
KUSHWAH
+05'30'