Compassionate appointment claims cannot be rejected without addressing contrary contemporaneous departmental records.

The applicant, Chunni Lal, claimed to be the son of Late Harangi Lal, who worked as a Commission Vendor under the Railways and died on 9 May 2005 while serving at Kanpur Central Railway Station.

The applicant sought appointment in Group ‘D’ service on compassionate grounds under the Railway Board’s policies governing the wards or legal heirs of Commission Vendors who died before absorption into regular service.

His claim had previously been considered in O.A. Nos. 957 of 2006 and 1232 of 2014, pursuant to which the respondents were directed to reconsider it.

The applicant relied on Railway records showing his father’s age as 53 years in 2002, 54 years in 2003, and 55 years in 2004, as well as an affidavit mentioning his date of birth as 8 December 1948.

The respondents, however, relied on a ration card and departmental communication dated 21/24 September 2010 to treat his date of birth as 1 October 1940, making him 64 years old at the time of death and ineligible under the scheme.

The applicant challenged the consequential rejection communicated on 12 January 2015.

Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment by treating Late Harangi Lal’s date of birth as 1 October 1940 on the basis of the ration card and related departmental communication?

Whether the respondents were required to consider the contemporaneous Railway records showing Late Harangi Lal’s age as 53, 54, and 55 years during 2002–2004 before deciding the applicant’s eligibility?

Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction for appointment in Group ‘D’ service under the Railway Board Orders dated 7 June 2007 and 1 August 2007?

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

It applied the Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG)II/2006/RC-1/Genl./1 dated 7 June 2007, under which the General Manager may consider appointment in Group ‘D’ service for the ward or widow of an eligible Commission Vendor or Bearer who died before absorption, subject to the prescribed age, screening, medical, and other conditions.

The governing principle applied was that an administrative authority must consider all relevant material and give cogent reasons when rejecting evidence that is directly relevant to eligibility; a decision based on selective consideration of records is vitiated by non-application of mind.

The Tribunal did not determine the applicant’s ultimate entitlement to appointment, leaving that question to the competent authority under the applicable scheme and rules.

The Tribunal found that the Railway’s own contemporaneous medical fitness records consistently recorded Late Harangi Lal’s age as 53 years in 2002, 54 years in 2003, and 55 years in 2004, which materially contradicted the respondents’ reliance on the year 1940 and an age of 64 years at death.

Although the respondents relied on the ration card and the 2010 departmental communication, they failed to explain why the Railway records—described as primary and contemporaneous records—were disregarded.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondents’ decision did not demonstrate that these contrary records had been considered and rejected for cogent reasons.

Reliance solely on a State Government ration card, while ignoring the Railway’s own records, rendered the rejection unsustainable for non-consideration of relevant material.

However, because eligibility under the compassionate appointment scheme involved other conditions, the Tribunal directed reconsideration rather than ordering appointment outright.

It directed the competent authority to reconsider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and the Railway Board policies dated 7 June 2007 and 1 August 2007, after examining the entire relevant record and passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within four months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any final opinion on the applicant’s ultimate entitlement to appointment.

The Original Application was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.