DILIP KUMAR vs RAIL BHAWAN

1

(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad


Original ApplicationNo.102 of 2025
th
This the 29 Day of October 2026.
Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)
Dilip Kumar aged about 33 years son of Late Mahesh Babu
Resident of Village Vijay Garhi, Linepar, Post Tundla, District
Firozabad.
….Applicant .
By Advocate: Shri Hari Shankar Chaurasia

Versus
Union of India has been deleted by Hon’ble Tribunal order dated
15.12.2025.

1. The General Manager, Northern Central Railway, Prayagraj.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Central Railway,
Prayagraj.
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Central Railway,
Prayagraj.
4. Senior Section Engineer (Rail Pathway) Northern Central
Railway, Prayagraj.

… Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Pooja Mishra
ORDER
Heard, Shri Hari Shankar Chaurasia, counsel for the
applicant and Ms. Pooja Mishra, counsel for the respondents.
VIVEK
RAWAT

2

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking
following reliefs: -
“(a) To quash the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 passed
by the respondent no.4.
(b) To direct the respondents authorities to consider the
claim of the applicant and appoint him on suitable post as
per his qualification forthwith under dying in harness rules
1974.
(c) To grant and further relief/direction order as deem and
fit proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the
applicant.
(d) To award cost in the favour of the applicant.”
3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant that the
father of the applicant, Late Mahesh Babu, was appointed as
Trackman in the office of the Senior Section Engineer (Rail
Pathway), North Central Railway, Tundla, on 01.10.1998 and
died in harness on 06.06.2024 due to critical medical issues,
leaving behind two sons, namely Jitendra Kumar and Dilip
Kumar, and two daughters, namely Sanju and Seema Kumari.
The applicant’s mother had predeceased his father on
30.06.2008. After the death of his father, the applicant
submitted an application dated 20.06.2024 seeking
compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974, on a suitable post commensurate with his
qualifications, after completing all requisite formalities. The
applicant’s family, being solely dependent upon the
deceased employee, has been facing severe financial
VIVEK
RAWAT

3

hardship, and the Village Pradhan also issued a certificate
confirming the unemployment and financial distress of the
applicant’s family. However, the respondent no. 4, vide
impugned order dated 01.08.2024, rejected the applicant’s
claim for compassionate appointment without assigning any
cogent reasons, considering the facts and merits of the case,
or following the principles of natural justice, thereby passing
a non-speaking, arbitrary, illegal and unjust order. Hence,
the applicant has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal seeking
quashing of the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 and a
direction to the respondents to consider his claim and grant
him compassionate appointment on a suitable post
commensurate with his qualifications under the Dying-in-
.
Harness Rules, 1974 Hence, the present Original Application.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
has filed counter affidavit, wherein , It is submitted that the
applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was duly
considered by the competent authority and rejected vide
impugned letter dated 01.08.2024 issued by respondent no.
4, after an enquiry conducted by the Personnel Welfare
Inspector/Staff Welfare Inspector, wherein it was found that
all the family members of the deceased employee, including
the applicant, were major and married, the applicant being
VIVEK
RAWAT

4

approximately 33 years of age, and his father having died on
06.06.2024, about six months prior to his scheduled
retirement. It was further found that the applicant had himself
disclosed in paragraph no. 10 of his affidavit, filed as
Annexure No. 6 to the Original Application, that he was
earning Rs.9,000/- per month as a labourer, and that all the
sons and daughters of the deceased employee had been
married during his lifetime, while the applicant’s mother had
predeceased his father on 30.06.2008. It is also submitted that
the terminal dues amounting to Rs.23,74,129/- payable on
account of the death of the deceased employee had already
been disbursed to his family members and no further dues
remained payable. Accordingly, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the competent authority rightly
rejected the applicant’s claim, as compassionate
appointment is not a vested right or an entitlement arising
automatically upon the death of an employee in harness, but
is an exceptional measure intended to provide immediate
relief to a family facing acute financial distress. In support of
the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v.
Samsuz Zoha, AIR 1996 SC 1961; Himachal Road Transport
Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, (1996) 4 SCC 560; Hindustan
VIVEK
RAWAT

5

Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394;
and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC
583. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
respondents submit that the impugned order dated
01.08.2024 is justified and the Original Application is devoid
of merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In reply, the applicant has filed and submitted that,
vide order dated 15.12.2025, this Hon'ble Tribunal was
pleased to direct deletion of respondent No. 1 from the array
of parties. That the father of the applicant, namely Mahesh
Babu (since deceased), was employed as Track Man in the
office of Senior Section Engineer (Rail Pathway), North
Central Railway, and died in harness on 06.06.2024, leaving
behind his two sons, namely Jitendra Kumar and Dilip Kumar,
and two daughters, namely Sanju and Seema Kumari, as his
dependants. That, thereafter, the applicant submitted an
application dated 20.06.2024 seeking compassionate
appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, on a
suitable post commensurate with his educational
qualification; however, the competent authority rejected his
claim without proper application of mind and without
assigning cogent reasons. That the applicant specifically
denies the allegations made in the counter affidavit
VIVEK
RAWAT

6

regarding the family being well settled and the applicant
earning Rs. 9,000/- per month as a labourer, as the applicant
is unemployed and the deceased employee's family is facing
acute financial hardship and is on the verge of starvation.
That the applicant, being a dependent family member of the
deceased railway employee, has a genuine and bona fide
claim for consideration for compassionate appointment in
accordance with the applicable rules and policy. That the
judgments and case laws relied upon by the respondents are
distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. That the rejection of the
applicant's claim is arbitrary, unreasoned and unsustainable
in the eyes of law; hence, the impugned rejection order is
liable to be set aside and the Original Application filed by
the applicant deserves to be allowed by this Hon'ble
Tribunal.
6. Heard the learned counsels of both the sides. It is the
case of the Applicant that his compassionate appointment
case was rejected without really going into the merits of the
case by just saying that all family members were adults and
married. The definition of Family has been based on the one
given for Railway pass. As per the latest ruling on the subject,
married sons and daughters are also eligible for
VIVEK
RAWAT

7

compassionate appointment. The applicant’s case has been
rejected by a cryptic order saying that since the family
members are adults and married, the case is rejected.
7. Counsel for applicant said that he would be satisfied if
he is informed of the basis on which his case was rejected.
8. It is therefore, directed that the Applicant be given a
detailed and reasoned order as to what were the parameters
considered and why his case was not found suitable for
consideration of compassionate appointment.
9. Accordingly, Original application is disposed of.


( Manju Pandey )
Member (A)
/Vivek/
VIVEK
RAWAT