Compassionate Appointment Not for Financial Stability, But for Destitution.

Applicant No. 1, Vasuben Mavi, is the widow, and Applicant No. 2, Hirabhai Mavi, is the son of the deceased employee, Amarsingh Jimal Mavi, who worked as a Track Maintainer Gr-III under SSE/P-Way/URN with Respondent No. 2.

Amarsingh Jimal Mavi died on June 20, 2020, while on duty, just three months and ten days before his superannuation/retirement.

Following his death, the mother of Applicant No. 2 submitted a death certificate and an application on February 21, 2020, requesting a compassionate appointment for Applicant No. 2, as he was the eldest son.

The application for compassionate appointment was rejected on February 18, 2020 (re-stated as February 18, 2021 in other places) via order No. E/conf./890/1 (HAM/20).

The grounds for rejection were that the deceased employee died just before superannuation, Applicant No. 1 was also working as a Track Maintainer and receiving a salary, and the children were major and married.

Additionally, an amount of Rs. 1,531,859/- was paid as settlement dues to the widow, and Applicant No. 1 was receiving a family pension of Rs. 17,000/- + DA per month.

Applicant No. 1 filed an appeal against the rejection, which was not decided by the respondents.

The applicant also argued that the affidavit supporting the respondent's reply was not filed by an authorized representative.

1. Whether the rejection of compassionate appointment for Applicant No. 2 was arbitrary, illegal, and unjust, given that the deceased employee died just before superannuation and the family received substantial financial benefits?

2. Whether the reasons provided by Respondent No. 2 for denying compassionate appointment to Applicant No. 2 are valid in law?

The court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial support to a family facing destitution due to the death of an employee, rather than to serve as a perpetual source of employment.

It specifically referenced Ministry of Railway guidelines issued via order No. E(R&T)/890/60/Policy Vol VI dated January 27, 2009, and RBE No. 3/2009 dated January 6, 2009, which state that compassionate appointment should be based on the overall financial condition of the deceased employee's family.

These guidelines mandate that the competent authority assess the financial condition, including assets, liabilities, number of dependants, and income of any family member, to determine if the grounds for compassionate appointment are justified.

The court analyzed the case by examining the underlying purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to alleviate immediate financial hardship, not to provide a continuous livelihood regardless of the family's financial status.

The court observed that the family of the deceased employee received substantial financial benefits, including DCRG benefits of Rs. 1,531,850/-, and Applicant No. 1 (the deceased's wife) was working as a Track Maintainer, receiving a salary and a family pension of Rs. 17,000/- + DA per month.

Furthermore, all five children of the deceased were major, married, and capable of earning their own livelihood, diminishing their dependence on the deceased's income.

The court noted that the deceased employee had almost completed his service, dying only three months and ten days before superannuation, which further reduced the argument of sudden financial destitution.

Applying the Ministry of Railway guidelines, the court concluded that the family's financial condition was "reasonable" and did not warrant compassionate support from the Ministry of Railway.

The argument regarding the unauthorized filing of the reply by the respondents was noted but did not alter the fundamental assessment of the family's financial situation.

The OA lacked merit and was, therefore, dismissed.

The court held that the family was not in critical financial destitution, considering the existing income, pension, and settlement dues received, along with the fact that all other children were major and married.