RICHA VARUN vs UNION OF INDIA

[2026:RJ-JD:15901-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
Reportable
07/04/2026
1. The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the
order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.
298/2018 (Richa Varun vs. Union of India & Anr.), whereby the
learned Tribunal dismissed the original application and declined
the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
2. The foundational facts are not in dispute. Late Shri Mahesh
Dutt, an employee of the respondent-Railways holding the post of
Stock Verifier in the Accounts Section (DRM Office), Bikaner,
expired on 24.12.1997. It is also not disputed that his first wife,
Smt. Sheela Devi, had been lawfully divorced on 21.07.1990.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:08:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 02:19:08 PM)

(2 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:15901-DB] [CW-11113/2023]
3. Thereafter, the mother of the present petitioner, Smt. Shova
Devi, became the legally wedded second wife of the deceased
employee, and the petitioner is the sole daughter born out of the
said wedlock. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court
that Smt. Shova Devi expired on 19.02.2025.
4. Disputes arose between the families of the first wife and the
second wife with regard to succession, culminating in a succession
decree dated 04.10.2007 passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 60/1998
(Shova Dutt & Anr. vs. Pawan @ Rajesh & Ors.). The said decree,
based on a compromise, apportioned the movable and immovable
properties and has been reproduced in the impugned order of the
learned Tribunal.
4.1. The denial of compassionate appointment primarily rests
upon the said compromise, wherein the petitioner's mother had
agreed that compassionate appointment be granted to Raj Kumar
@Raju, the son of the divorced wife.
4.2. However, it is equally undisputed that the candidature of the
said Raj Kumar @ Raju was subsequently rejected by the
respondents vide order dated 30.08.2013 on the ground of over-
age and ineligibility, and the said rejection was never challenged.
4.3. The learned Tribunal, while extensively considering the
succession decree, dismissed the original application solely on the
ground that the petitioner's mother had relinquished the claim for
compassionate appointment under the compromise,
notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was a minor at that
time and her independent right had not crystallized.
5. In light of the above, the following issues arise for
consideration before this Court:
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:08:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 02:19:08 PM)

(3 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:15901-DB] [CW-11113/2023]
(i) Whether a claim for compassionate appointment, made after a
considerable lapse of time, can still be sustained in law; and
(ii) Whether the compromise decree entered into between the
families can bind the petitioner, who was a minor at the relevant
time, in respect of her independent claim for compassionate
appointment.
6. Learned counsel for the Union of India, Mr. Kirta Ram
Meghwal throwing light on the law on time limit for making
compassionate appointment has taken this Court to the Master
circular on compassionate appointment issued on 22.02.2024
where the time limit has been prescribed under Clause III, which
reads as follows:-
“ III. Time Limit for consideration on CGA by Railway:-
i. All requests for CGA submitted within the prescribed period of 5 years
from the date of death/medical invalidation /2 years of attaining
majority for ward registered earlier as minor, shall be finalized/decided
by DRMs/CWMs/HODs/ Competent Authority. Such cases not received
within this period of 5 years will be considered as per the following
schedule by the authority indicated against each:-

ii. It is also clarified that irrespective of any time limit, only GM is
empowered to consider and decide CGA in posts of Level - 7 (having
4600/- GP). Similarly, CGA to Level-6 (having 4200/-GP) where DR
Quota is up to 25% or less, is also decided by GM only and not by any
other lower authority.
iii. As regards cases where the request for CGA has not been received by
the Railway Administration within 05 years of the event warranting
CGA, such cases shall be decided by the authorities as indicated in para
3 III (i) above.
iv. Railways should ensure that all possible efforts are made to give CGA to
the eligible dependent of the Railway employee concerned without
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:08:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 02:19:08 PM)

(4 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:15901-DB] [CW-11113/2023]
undue delay within the time frame specified in Para X (d) of Railway
Board's Master Circular No. 16. Further, responsibility may be fixed on
the concerned officials/officers for delay/inaction.
v. While considering belated requests i.e. those received by Railway
Administration after 5 years, it should, however, be kept in view that
the concept of CGA is largely related to the need for immediate
assistance to the family of the Railway servant in order to relieve it
from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to
manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as
adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of
subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases would call for a
great deal of circumspection as per extant norms. ”
7. Learned counsel has further relied upon the relevant
provisions of Master Circular No. 16, particularly Clause V
concerning the time limit for compassionate appointments, which
reads as under:
“ V. TIME LIMIT FOR MAKING COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS:
a. Normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made
within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event
entitling the eligible person to be appointed on this ground. This period
of live years may be relaxed by the General Manager, subject to the
following conditions:
i. The powers shall be exercised personalty by the General
Manager. It shall not be delegated to a lower authority.
ii. The case should not be more than ten years old as reckoned
from the date of death.
iii. The widow of the deceased employee should not have remarried.
iv. The benefit of compassionate appointment should not have been
given at any time to any other member of the family or to a near
relative of the deceased employee.
v. The circumstances of the case should be such as to warrant
relaxation of the time limit of five years.
vi. The reasons for relaxing the time limit should be placed on
record.
vii. The request for compassionate appointment should have been
received by the Railway Administration as soon as the son/
daughter to be considered for compassionate appointment has
become a major, say within a maximum period of one year.-
b. Where death occurred more than 10 years back and also in cases where
death took place between 5-10 years back but the conditions
stipulated in para V (a) above are not fulfilled, a compassionate
appointed is not within the competency of the General Manager except
in the case of loss of life in course of duty or getting crippled in the
course of duty. However, in such cases, if compassionate appointment
is otherwise admissible and if after careful examination of the case it is
found that there are special features or circumstances justifying
relaxation of time limit as also criteria, the cases could be considered by
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:08:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 02:19:08 PM)

(5 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:15901-DB] [CW-11113/2023]
the Railway Administration for approaching the Railway Board for
relaxation of as a special case. Such a reference to the Railway Board
should be made by the Railway Administration only with the personal
approval of the General Manager.”
8. Upon consideration of the record, it is evident that the
petitioner attained majority on 28.11.2013 and submitted her
application for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2013.
Furthermore, a conjoint reading of the applicable Master Circulars
indicates that the scheme provides sufficient flexibility in matters
of time limits, even permitting consideration of cases beyond
extended periods, subject to appropriate approval.
8.1. In the present case, learned counsel for the respondents has
fairly acknowledged that, under the prevailing circulars, the
petitioner's claim is not barred on the ground of limitation.
Accordingly, the issue relating to delay stands answered in favour
of the petitioner.
9. As regards the second issue concerning the effect of the
compromise decree arising out of the succession proceedings, this
Court finds that the same cannot operate to defeat the
independent statutory right of the present petitioner.
9.1. The compromise forming the basis of the succession
certificate was entered into between the mother of the petitioner,
who was admittedly the legally wedded wife of the deceased
employee, and the family of the divorced wife. However, the
arrangement therein, insofar as it purported to allocate the claim
for compassionate appointment in favour of the son of the
divorced wife, cannot bind the present petitioner for more than
one reason.

(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:08:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 02:19:08 PM)

(6 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:15901-DB] [CW-11113/2023]
9.2. Firstly, the said competing claimant, namely Raj Kumar @
Raju, has already been held ineligible by the respondents on
account of over-age, and such rejection has admittedly attained
finality, having not been assailed before any forum. Consequently,
no rival claim survives for consideration, and the field stands clear
for adjudication of the petitioner's entitlement.
9.3. Secondly, and more fundamentally, the petitioner was a
minor at the time when the compromise decree was entered into.
Her right to seek compassionate appointment is a distinct and
independent right, which crystallized only upon her attaining
majority. Such a right cannot be foreclosed or contractually waived
by a guardian through a compromise, particularly when the same
pertains to a future statutory entitlement. Any such stipulation in
the compromise, to the extent it seeks to prejudice the
petitioner's independent claim, cannot be held binding in law.
9.4. Thirdly, compassionate appointment is not a matter of
succession or distribution of estate, but a welfare measure
intended to mitigate immediate financial distress of the family of a
deceased employee. Therefore, its conferment cannot be governed
or curtailed by private arrangements inter se family members,
especially when such arrangements operate to the detriment of an
otherwise eligible dependent.
9.5. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the daughter
of the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and thus falls
squarely within the zone of consideration under the applicable
policy. In the absence of any subsisting competing claim, and in
view of the admitted position that the applicable Master Circulars
permit consideration of even belated claims extending up to a
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:08:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 02:19:08 PM)

(7 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:15901-DB] [CW-11113/2023]
substantial period, this Court finds no legal impediment in
recognizing the petitioner's entitlement.
9.6. Thus, the compromise decree dated 04.10.2007, to the
extent it purports to regulate or restrict the claim of
compassionate appointment, cannot be enforced against the
present petitioner.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present writ petition
stands allowed . The impugned order dated 21.02.2023 passed by
the learned Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The respondents are directed to grant compassionate
appointment to the petitioner, subject to fulfillment of eligibility
conditions, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order. While doing so, the
observations contained in the compromise decree dated
04.10.2007, insofar as they relate to compassionate appointment,
shall not operate as a bar against the petitioner's claim.
12. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 01:08:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 02:19:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)