Court disposes of compassionate appointment case due to parties' mutual agreement.

The applicant, Ms. K. Anjali, is the daughter of the late K. Subash, who was a Tech (FTR -Mill Wright/Electrical -I) under Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and died in service on February 14, 2024, due to cardiac arrest.

K. Subash was first married to Lakshmi, with whom he had the applicant.

After Lakshmi's death in 1992, he married K. Karuna (Respondent No. 4) in 1993, and they had two children.

The deceased employee's dependents included the applicant, his second wife Karuna, their two children, and his mother Narasamma.

The applicant's name was recorded as a dependent in the medical card issued by the SCR during her father's service.

Although living separately with her paternal grandmother, her father provided maintenance to both.

Following her father's death, the applicant submitted a representation on March 23, 2024, requesting settlement of death benefits and compassionate appointment.

As there was no response, she issued a legal notice on July 22, 2024.

Respondent No. 3 replied on August 27, 2024, stating that family pension would be equally divided between the applicant and Smt. K. Karuna, but gratuity, PF, and leave encashment would be paid to Smt. Karuna, citing a valid nomination.

The applicant objected to the exclusive payment of gratuity and other benefits to Smt. K. Karuna and reiterated her claim for compassionate appointment, emphasizing her status as an unemployed, unmarried dependent daughter.

Aggrieved by the non-consideration of her claim, she approached the Tribunal.

Respondent No. 4, Smt. K Karuna, stated that while official respondents paid benefits as per rules, she voluntarily offered half of her family pension to the applicant.

She also expressed readiness to give half of the settlement/death benefits received to the applicant to assist with her marriage.

Respondent No. 4 further submitted that if the applicant were given a job, she might not provide an undertaking to care for dependents after marriage, whereas her son could take care of all dependents.

The official respondents (R-1 to R-3) confirmed that settlement benefits were disbursed to Smt. K. Karuna based on existing instructions and a valid nomination, and family pension would be equally processed for Smt. K. Karuna and Kum. K. Anjali.

Whether the Respondents 2 and 3 were obligated to consider the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment as an unmarried and unemployed dependent daughter of the deceased employee?

Whether the non-consideration of the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India?

Whether the Respondents 2 and 3 should be directed to consider the applicant's representation dated March 23, 2024, for compassionate appointment and pass orders thereon?

The Tribunal referred to "extant instructions issued by Railway Board circulated under S.C.No.53/2021" regarding the distribution of death benefits and compassionate ground appointments.

It also acknowledged the legal framework governing family pension and other benefits distribution based on nomination and specific orders of preference for beneficiaries.

The principles of compassionate appointment, requiring an undertaking from the appointee to care for dependent family members, were also tacitly considered.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment and the official respondents' position regarding the distribution of death benefits, specifically that family pension would be shared equally between the applicant and the second wife, while other benefits were paid to the second wife based on nomination.

Critically, the Tribunal considered the offer made by Respondent No. 4, Smt. K Karuna, in her reply statement, where she proposed to share both the family pension (which she was already doing voluntarily) and half the amount of other settlement/death benefits received with the applicant.

The applicant's counsel explicitly stated that this offer made by Respondent No. 4 was acceptable to the applicant.

Counsel for the official respondents (R-1 to R-3) also conveyed that the department would consider this arrangement as per extant rules.

Given the mutual agreement and acceptance of the proposed arrangement by both the applicant and Respondent No. 4, with confirmation from the official respondents, the underlying dispute regarding the distribution of benefits and the claim for compassionate appointment was effectively resolved, leaving no further matters for adjudication.

The matter was disposed of accordingly, with the official respondents directed to take further action to implement the agreed-upon arrangement within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

There was no order as to costs.