Compassionate appointment cannot follow voluntary retirement absent medical invalidation and prescribed qualifying service.

Applicant No. 1, a Technician Grade-I in the Eastern Railway Workshop, Kanchrapara, suffered from leprosy and was undergoing treatment. He sought voluntary retirement with effect from 31.03.2015, stating that his medical and mental condition prevented him from continuing in service.

The Railway authorities accepted his request and issued the voluntary-retirement order dated 25.02.2015.

After his retirement, Applicant No. 1 sought compassionate appointment for his wife, Applicant No. 2, relying upon Railway Board instructions, including RBE No. 8/2000 and CPO Serial No. 32/2000.

The request was not accepted, following which the applicants issued representations and approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents contended that Applicant No. 1 had not been medically invalidated. On 26.08.2014, he had been certified fit and permitted to resume duty from 27.08.2014.

They further contended that he had voluntarily retired on his own request and had not challenged the medical report under paragraph 522 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, Volume I.

Whether the voluntary retirement of Applicant No. 1, without a formal declaration of medical invalidation or incapacity for all categories of Railway service, entitled Applicant No. 2 to compassionate appointment under the applicable Railway Board instructions?

Whether the applicants satisfied the prescribed conditions, including the requirement relating to the minimum remaining period of service, for seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of voluntary retirement?

Whether the Railway authorities were required to grant or reconsider compassionate appointment for Applicant No. 2?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning applications to the Tribunal.

It considered RBE No. 8/2000, circulated under CPO Serial No. 32/2000, under which compassionate appointment for an eligible ward may be considered where an employee is totally incapacitated and unable to continue in any post because of his medical condition, subject to the applicable conditions.

Paragraph 522 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, Volume I, provides for an appeal or re-examination against an adverse medical report, while paragraphs 537 and 543 distinguish ordinary medical certificates from an invalidation certificate and prescribe the procedure for medical invalidation through the competent medical authorities.

The Tribunal also referred to the principle reflected in Bhuneshwar Sahu v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 618/2011, that voluntary retirement on health grounds, without the requisite medical invalidation and compliance with the applicable procedure, does not by itself create an entitlement to compassionate appointment.

The Tribunal further treated the requirement of at least five years of remaining service as a condition relevant to eligibility for compassionate appointment in such cases.

The Tribunal found that Applicant No. 1 had not been declared medically invalidated or unfit for all categories of Railway service.

On the contrary, the Railway Medical Officer had certified him fit on 26.08.2014 and permitted him to resume duty from 27.08.2014.

Although he subsequently sought voluntary retirement on health grounds, no invalidation certificate or Medical Board determination satisfying paragraph 543 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual was produced.

The applicant also did not invoke the appellate or re-examination procedure under paragraph 522.

Accordingly, the condition in RBE No. 8/2000—total incapacity to continue in any post—was not established.

The Tribunal additionally observed that the voluntary retirement was sought at the fag end of the applicant’s service, retiral benefits had been released, and the requirement concerning a minimum five-year balance service was not satisfied.

Therefore, the voluntary retirement could not be treated as a basis for creating a right to compassionate appointment in favour of Applicant No. 2.

The Original Application was consequently dismissed without any order as to costs.