CAT Directs Railways To Explain Rejection Of Deceased Worker’s Married Son’s Compassionate-Appointment Claim

The applicant’s father, a Trackman with the North Central Railway, died in service on 6 June 2024, leaving behind two sons and two daughters; the applicant’s mother had predeceased him.

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 20 June 2024, but his claim was rejected by the Senior Section Engineer on 1 August 2024.

The respondents stated that the applicant was about 33, that all the children were adults and married, that he had disclosed earning ₹9,000 per month as a labourer, and that terminal dues of ₹23,74,129 had been paid.

The applicant disputed the asserted income and financial circumstances, and challenged the rejection as unreasoned.

He sought to quash the rejection and obtain consideration for compassionate appointment.

The application concerned compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

The Tribunal noted that compassionate appointment is not an automatic entitlement and referred to a “latest ruling” under which married sons and daughters may also be eligible; however, it did not identify that ruling or set out its citation.

The respondents cited State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha, Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh in support of their position that compassionate appointment is an exceptional measure, not a vested right.

The Tribunal did not discuss or apply those precedents in its reasoning.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s central complaint to be that the rejection rested on the bare statement that the family members were adults and married, without a reasoned assessment of the claim.

It noted that married sons and daughters may be eligible under the relevant approach, so their marital status alone did not explain why the applicant’s case was unsuitable for consideration.

Rather than determining the applicant’s entitlement to appointment or resolving the disputed financial circumstances, the Tribunal confined its intervention to requiring a detailed explanation of the parameters considered and the reasons for rejection.

It directed the respondents to provide him with a detailed and reasoned order stating the parameters considered and why his case was not found suitable for compassionate appointment.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly.