Direction for fresh medical board examination to re-evaluate eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The applicant, Bhola Nath Chandra, is the surviving spouse of Ranu Chandra, a South Eastern Railway employee who died in service on 22/02/2025

Following her death, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 05/05/2025

During the recruitment process, a Railway medical officer declared the applicant medically unfit for appointment in categories A2 through C2, resulting in the rejection of his claim for employment assistance on 06/01/2026

The applicant subsequently obtained a medical report from Narayana Multi-Specialty Hospital dated 14/02/2026, which declared him medically fit

Contending that the initial medical assessment was erroneous, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for a re-medical examination

Whether the applicant is entitled to a fresh medical examination by a Railway Medical Board in light of conflicting medical opinions regarding his fitness for service

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The procedural conduct of the matter by a Single Bench was authorized under Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

the court relied on the standards for medical fitness and recruitment procedures established under the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM) and the prevailing policy guidelines of the Railway Board regarding compassionate appointments

The Tribunal noted the significant discrepancy between the Railway doctor's finding of unfitness and the private hospital's report finding the applicant fit

In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to treat the Original Application as a formal appeal against the initial medical rejection

The court reasoned that given the nature of compassionate appointment—intended to provide immediate relief to a deceased employee's family—the applicant deserved a secondary evaluation by a multi-member Medical Board rather than a summary rejection based on a single assessment.

The Tribunal emphasized that this re-evaluation must strictly adhere to the technical standards defined in the IRMM and Railway Board policies to ensure a fair determination of the applicant's eligibility for a suitable post

The court held that the respondent authority must then pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant's appeal for compassionate appointment based on the Medical Board's findings

No order was made as to costs