A dependent brother of an unmarried railway employee merits reconsideration after verifying dependency and family finances.

Late Om Prakash, a Railway employee working as a call boy, died in harness in 2008, leaving behind his wife, two sons and two daughters.

His wife, Laxmi Devi, was granted family pension and other retiral benefits.

On her request, their son, Sunil Kumar, was appointed on compassionate grounds on 15 February 2009.

Sunil Kumar subsequently died unmarried on 13 May 2023, allegedly leaving behind his mother, two unmarried sisters and his younger brother, Kamal Shakya, who was stated to be unemployed and dependent upon him.

Kamal Shakya applied for compassionate appointment and submitted representations supported by affidavits and a certificate regarding the family’s indigent condition.

The claim was rejected on the ground that Sunil Kumar was unmarried, had disclosed no dependent in his family pass or PTO, and that a major brother was not a dependent under the Railway Servants’ Pass Rules, 1986.

The applicants challenged the rejection orders before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the brother of an unmarried deceased Railway employee can be considered for compassionate appointment when his actual dependency is asserted but is not established through family-pass or PTO records?

Whether the respondents could reject the claim solely on the basis that the applicant was a major brother and was not covered by the dependency provisions of the Railway Servants’ Pass Rules, 1986?

Whether the respondents were required to conduct an objective inquiry into the applicant’s dependency and the financial condition of the deceased employee’s family before rejecting the claim?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied Railway Board Letter No. E(NG)II/2014/RC-1/SCR/5 dated 8 July 2014, issued as RBE No. 70/2014, under which a dependent brother or sister of an unmarried Railway employee dying in harness may be considered for compassionate appointment if wholly dependent on the deceased employee.

Dependency may be established through documents such as family-pass or ration-card records, but those documents are only facilitating evidence and not restrictive prerequisites, and, in their absence, dependency may be verified through a Welfare Inspector’s inquiry.

The Tribunal distinguished the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and the Railway Servants’ Pass Rules, 1986 from the compassionate-appointment scheme, holding that restrictions applicable to family pension or pass entitlement cannot automatically govern compassionate appointment.

RBE No. 03/2009 dated 6 January 2009 was treated as relating primarily to delegation of authority and competency, not as extinguishing the substantive right of consideration under RBE No. 70/2014.

The Tribunal also relied on its decision in Manish Kumar Mandal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 467 of 2025, decided on 30 July 2026, which required reconsideration based on Welfare Inspector verification, dependency material and the family’s financial condition.

The Tribunal held that the respondents had treated the absence of Kamal Shakya’s name in the family pass or PTO, and his status as a major brother, as conclusive against dependency.

That approach was inconsistent with RBE No. 70/2014, which expressly makes such documents merely facilitating evidence and permits factual verification by a Welfare Inspector where documentary proof is unavailable.

The Tribunal further found that the respondents had improperly relied on provisions concerning pass entitlement and the status of a major brother, without undertaking the required factual assessment of whether Kamal was actually dependent on Sunil Kumar at the time of Sunil’s death.

The relevant inquiry was therefore the applicant’s actual dependency and the overall financial condition of the family, rather than an automatic exclusion based on age, relationship or absence from pass records.

Since the rejection orders did not reflect such an inquiry, they could not be sustained.

The respondents were directed to reconsider Kamal Shakya’s claim for compassionate appointment on merits, in accordance with the applicable Railway rules and RBE No. 70/2014, after obtaining a Welfare Inspector’s report on his dependency upon the deceased employee and assessing the financial condition of the dependent family members.

The reconsideration was directed to be undertaken in the next Compassionate Appointment Committee meeting.

All connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.