Compromise decree entered during minority cannot waive independent statutory right to seek compassionate appointment.

The petitioner’s father, Shri Mahesh Dutt, an employee of the respondent-Railways, died in harness on 24.12.1997

Following a dispute between the families of the deceased’s divorced first wife and the second wife (the petitioner’s mother), a compromise decree was passed on 04.10.2007. In this decree, the petitioner’s mother relinquished claims for compassionate appointment in favor of Raj Kumar, the son of the first wife

Raj Kumar’s candidature was rejected by the respondents in 2013 due to over-age and ineligibility

Upon attaining majority on 28.11.2013, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2013

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed her application, holding that the mother’s earlier relinquishment in the compromise decree was binding

1. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment made after a considerable lapse of time can be sustained in law under the applicable Railway Board Master Circulars?

2. Whether a compromise decree entered into by a guardian during the petitioner’s minority can bind or extinguish her independent statutory claim for compassionate appointment?

Railway Board Master Circulars (Circular No. 16 and the Circular dated 22.02.2024), which prescribe the time limits and relaxation powers for Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA). Specifically, Clause III of the 2024 Circular allows consideration of cases beyond 25 years with the approval of the Ministry of Railways

Clause V of Circular No. 16 mandates that requests should ideally be made within one year of a minor attaining majority

compassionate appointment is a welfare measure, not a matter of succession or distribution of estate, and therefore cannot be governed by private contractual arrangements

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim was not barred by limitation because she applied within a month of attaining majority

the petitioner was a minor at the time and possessed a "distinct and independent right" that crystallized only upon reaching majority; a guardian cannot contractually waive a minor’s future statutory entitlements

since the rival claimant (Raj Kumar) was declared ineligible and did not challenge the rejection, no competing claim existed

CGA is intended to mitigate financial distress and its conferment cannot be curtailed by private family settlements to the detriment of an eligible dependent

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the CAT’s order dated 21.02.2023. The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner compassionate appointment, subject to eligibility fulfillment, within three months