Compassionate appointment subject to scheme rules; delay and ineligibility preclude relief.

The applicant, Balbeer Singh, is the son of Late Dhani Ram, a Railway employee who died on 09.02.2010.

In 2010, the applicant applied for death-cum-retiral dues and compassionate appointment.

The D.R.M. (P), Jhansi, directed him to obtain a succession certificate due to another claim as an adopted son.

The applicant obtained a judgment on 25.07.2016 from the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi, declaring him the legally adopted son.

Terminal dues were released in November 2016, but compassionate appointment was denied as the applicant was only 8th class educated, while High School (10th pass) was the minimum qualification.

The applicant then passed the High School Examination in 2021 and reapplied on 07.12.2021.

His claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by respondent No. 3 on 20.05.2022 without assigned reasons.

The respondents filed a Counter Affidavit on 23.03.2023, denying the claim on grounds including the applicant's age, lack of High School qualification at the time of adoption declaration in 2016, and the significant delay of 21 years from his father's death to acquiring the qualification.

An Additional Counter Affidavit was filed on 27.10.2025, clarifying the rejection order dated 20.05.2022 per the Tribunal's direction.

This communication cited serious doubts regarding dependency, the applicant being a married son aged about 27 years at the time of death and thus not ordinarily considered dependent per Railway Circulars No. 42/2000 and 20/2018, being overage (39 years when applying in 2021 against a maximum of 33 years for OBC non-graduate posts), and the claim being highly time-barred (after more than 11 years from death, exceeding the five-year limitation in Railway Circulars No. 20/2000 and 42/2018).

The respondents also argued that the purpose of immediate financial relief was negated by the long delay.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment is illegal or arbitrary, considering the delay occasioned by departmental requirements and subsequent acquisition of minimum qualifications.

2. Whether the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment is barred by delay, age, and non-dependency as per the prevailing Railway rules and circulars.

3. Whether the order dated 15.10.2025, clarifying the initial rejection, is invalid due to being passed by an allegedly incompetent authority.

Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but an exception to mitigate immediate financial hardship, and therefore must be governed strictly by the employer's scheme.

Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138: Held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after the crisis is over, and its object is to provide immediate succour.

State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661: Affirmed that compassionate appointment is strictly governed by the scheme, and no direction can be issued contrary to its terms.

State of Karnataka v. N.C. Santhosh, (2020) 7 SCC 617: Clarified that the scheme prevailing at the time of consideration governs the claim.

Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412: Held that delay is a significant factor and the scheme in force at the time of consideration governs, emphasizing that appointment cannot be granted when the family has tided over the crisis.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653: Held that courts cannot direct relaxation of essential eligibility conditions unless the scheme provides such power and it is exercised lawfully.

Relevant Railway Circulars establish time limits (e.g., five years, Circular No. 20/2000, 42/2018), age limits (e.g., 33 years for OBC non-graduate posts), and dependency norms (e.g., married son not ordinarily dependent, Circular No. 42/2000, 20/2018).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant initially applied in 2010, his eligibility in terms of adopted son status and minimum educational qualification was acquired much later, in 2016 and 2021 respectively.

By the time his case was reconsidered, over eleven years had elapsed from the date of death, significantly diluting the immediacy of financial distress, which is the core justification for compassionate appointment, as per Umesh Kumar Nagpal and Canara Bank.

The applicant was a married and major son (around 27 years old) at the time of the employee's death and failed to substantiate exclusive financial dependency, as ordinarily required by Railway Circulars.

Furthermore, he was about 39 years old when he renewed his request in 2021, making him overage by six years against the prescribed maximum of 33 years for his category.

The Tribunal affirmed that eligibility conditions, including limitation and age, are mandatory and cannot be diluted on equitable considerations, citing State of Himachal Pradesh.

Even acknowledging potential delays due to departmental requirements, the facts remained that the applicant was overage and applied beyond the permissible period at the time of consideration.

Regarding the argument of an incompetent authority issuing the clarifying order dated 15.10.2025, the Tribunal held that since reconsideration occurred per its directions and provided reasons for rejection, a technical objection about the signatory's designation causes no prejudice, especially when the applicant was otherwise ineligible.

The Tribunal stressed that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and courts cannot rewrite scheme terms.

It held that the impugned rejection order dated 20.05.2022, as clarified by the communication dated 15.10.2025, did not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity.

The applicant's claim was effectively barred by significant delay, his status as a married son not establishing exclusive dependency, and being overage according to the applicable Railway rules and circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, with no order as to costs.