Compassionate Appointment: Not Automatic if Family is Not in Immediate Indigent Circumstances.

The applicant's father, Late Shri Narendra Singh, a Coach Attendant with N.C. Railway, was medically declared unfit for railway service and discharged on August 31, 2005, due to total medical incapacitation.

His father applied for compassionate appointment for the applicant, which was rejected, leading to O.A./1190/2008 before the Tribunal, which directed a reasoned order.

After further rejection, the applicant's father died on August 28, 2009.

The applicant's mother sent a reminder for compassionate appointment on February 16, 2010.

The applicant then filed O.A./1027/2010, which was decided on November 25, 2011, directing consideration of the applicant's claim and objective assessment of financial conditions as per Railway Board's letter dated June 14, 2006.

A subsequent rejection order dated February 7, 2012, led to O.A./1367/2013, where the Tribunal quashed the order and directed reconsideration as per extant rules and paragraph 6 of the Railway Board’s letter dated June 14, 2006.

The respondents again rejected the claim for compassionate appointment via an impugned order dated September 7, 2018.

1. Whether the impugned order dated September 7, 2018, rejecting the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment, is illegal and arbitrary.

2. Whether the payments made to the family constitute a substitute for compassionate appointment.

3. Whether the applicant is eligible for compassionate appointment under the Railway Board's instructions dated June 14, 2006, considering his father had less than five years of service left at the time of medical de-categorization.

4. Whether the rejection of compassionate appointment is justified given the financial condition and other circumstances of the applicant's family.

5. Whether the case should be governed by special rules 1304 & 1305 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) instead of the Dying-in-Harness Rule, 1974.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for hearing the application.

The core legal framework for compassionate appointment was derived from the Railway Board's letter dated June 14, 2006, particularly paragraph 6, which mandates a balanced and objective assessment of the financial and other conditions of the family to justify compassionate appointment.

Additionally, paragraph 4(b) of the same letter specifies that compassionate appointment for medically de-categorized staff's wards is only considered if the employee had at least five years of service left.

The Tribunal also acknowledged the consistent stance of the Hon'ble Apex Court that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but depends on financial distress and hardship, and fulfilling other eligibility criteria.

Reference was also made to paragraphs 1304 to 1305 of IREM Chapter XII concerning alternative arrangements for medically de-categorized staff.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had conducted an objective assessment of the applicant's family's financial conditions in compliance with previous directions and paragraph 6 of the Railway Board's letter dated June 14, 2006.

The assessment revealed that the family was receiving family pension, possessed agricultural land, and the applicant's father had less than five years of service remaining at the time of his medical de-categorization, rendering the applicant ineligible under paragraph 4(b) of the same Railway Board letter.

Furthermore, the sons of the deceased employee, including the applicant, were aged 38 and 40 years, suggesting they were capable of fending for themselves and their family.

The Tribunal held that compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right but is contingent on financial distress, and the existing financial resources and age of the dependents did not meet the criteria for indigence.

The applicant's reliance on paragraphs 1304-1305 of IREM was dismissed as those provisions relate to alternative arrangements for de-categorized staff, not compassionate appointment for wards.

It found no infirmity in the impugned order dated September 7, 2018, as the objective assessment of the family's financial condition, the less than five years of service left by the applicant's father, and the age of the applicant, did not warrant compassionate appointment under the Railway Board's instructions dated June 14, 2006.

The claim that the family's suffering was irreparable was not accepted, and the existence of pensionary benefits and agricultural land indicated the family was not in sudden crisis.

Therefore, the relief claimed by the applicant was not allowed.