Compassionate appointment claims require independent assessment; one dependent’s misconduct cannot disqualify another.

The applicant’s mother, Smt. Sulochna, was employed as a Full-Time Pointsman with Northern Railways and died in harness on 14.01.2015, leaving behind the applicant and her brother, Anup Kumar.

The applicant claimed that the family was in financial distress and that, although married, she had resided with and remained financially dependent upon her mother.

Her brother had earlier sought compassionate appointment, but his claim was rejected after he submitted an unrecognised/fake educational certificate.

The applicant subsequently applied for compassionate appointment on 04.10.2021; the respondents rejected her claim on 29.10.2021, principally because her brother’s claim had already been rejected and no fresh ground existed for reconsideration.

She challenged the rejection under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, contending that her eligibility had to be independently assessed under Master Circular No. 16 and the relevant Railway Board instructions.

The respondents disputed her dependency and educational qualification and asserted that the brother’s submission of a fake certificate disentitled the family from compassionate appointment.

Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment solely because her brother’s earlier claim had been rejected for submitting a fake educational certificate, without independently examining her eligibility under the applicable policy.

Whether the applicant’s status as a married daughter, and the disputed questions concerning her dependency and educational qualification, required consideration by the competent authority under the Railway Board instructions.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicant challenged the administrative rejection.

It relied on Master Circular No. 16 governing compassionate appointment and Railway Board instructions, particularly RBE No. 70/2014, which permit consideration of a married daughter where the competent authority is satisfied that she would be the breadwinner of the deceased Railway servant’s family; divorced or widowed daughters may also be considered subject to the specified dependency condition.

RBE No. 166/2011 concerning educational qualifications was also considered.

The Tribunal accepted the principle that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is intended to address immediate financial hardship, as recognised in LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar.

The Tribunal further relied on Smt. Sushila Bauri v. Union of India, for the principle that an otherwise eligible dependent cannot be denied consideration solely because of the misconduct or irregularity attributed to another family member.

The impugned order rejected the applicant’s claim by treating the brother’s earlier rejection as determinative and by referring to the alleged bogus or fake certificate submitted by him.

The respondents identified no provision in Master Circular No. 16 or any Railway Board instruction authorising the collective debarment of all dependants because of the conduct of one dependant.

Since the applicant asserted an independent claim and disputed the brother’s assertions regarding her dependency and qualifications, the competent authority was required to examine her case on its own merits.

The Tribunal also noted that RBE No. 70/2014 recognises that a married daughter may be considered, subject to satisfaction of the applicable dependency and breadwinner requirements; therefore, marital status alone could not justify rejection.

The questions whether the applicant was financially dependent on the deceased employee and possessed the prescribed educational qualification were factual matters requiring independent determination by the competent authority.

Accordingly, the rejection suffered from failure to apply the governing policy independently and was liable to be set aside.

The respondents were directed to independently consider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment on her own eligibility and merits, in accordance with Master Circular No. 16 and the relevant Railway Board instructions, without being influenced by the earlier rejection of her brother’s claim or the allegations concerning his educational certificate.

The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the applicant’s ultimate entitlement and directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was disposed of without costs.