Authorities may require clarification of conflicting dates of birth before processing compassionate appointment claims.

The applicant, Bijoy Kumar Sharma, claimed compassionate appointment as the son of Late Ram Chandra Sharma, an employee of the South Eastern Railway who died in service on 23 May 2015.

The applicant’s mother had predeceased his father, and his father’s second wife subsequently died without children.

The applicant had earlier faced criminal proceedings and was treated as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board.

In the proceedings, the applicant’s date of birth was recorded as 3 March 1993.

After his acquittal by the Juvenile Justice Board on 12 March 2020, the applicant sought compassionate appointment and submitted a no-objection certificate from the legal heirs.

The Railway authorities declined to process his claim further by letter dated 29 April 2023, citing a discrepancy between his date of birth recorded in Railway and other identity records—3 August 1987—and the date recorded in the Juvenile Justice Board proceedings—3 March 1993.

1. Whether the Railway authorities were justified in requiring the applicant to explain the discrepancy between the date of birth recorded in his official documents and the date recorded in the Juvenile Justice Board proceedings before considering his claim for compassionate appointment?

2. Whether the impugned communication dated 29 April 2023 refusing to process the applicant’s claim at that stage was liable to be quashed?

The Tribunal applied the principle that a claim for compassionate appointment must be considered on the basis of verified and consistent service and personal records, and that the competent authority may seek clarification regarding a material discrepancy affecting the applicant’s identity or eligibility before processing the claim.

The Tribunal also proceeded under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning disposal of matters by a Single-Member Bench, pursuant to the order of the Chairman of the Tribunal dated 10 September 2021.

No specific precedent or statutory provision governing the substantive entitlement to compassionate appointment was cited in the order.

The applicant relied on the date of birth recorded as 3 August 1987 in his father’s service book, birth certificate, Aadhaar card, PAN card, EPIC card and affidavit.

However, the Juvenile Justice Board proceedings recorded that, after an inquiry into the applicant’s claim of juvenility, his date of birth had been determined as 3 March 1993.

Since the two dates materially differed and could affect the applicant’s status at the time of the alleged offence as well as the assessment of his claim, the Tribunal held that the Railway authorities were entitled to seek clarification and supporting material.

The applicant’s inability to produce the document or declaration relied upon before the Juvenile Justice Board did not invalidate the authority’s request for clarification.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the communication dated 29 April 2023.

The challenge to the impugned communication dated 29 April 2023 therefore failed.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.