Fraudulent initial appointment of a deceased employee precludes dependents from claiming compassionate appointment.

The applicant’s father, Late Lalu Rai, was appointed as a Group-D employee in the Railways on March 13, 2010, under a rehabilitation scheme following the acquisition of ancestral land (Survey Nos. 676 and 680)

Lalu Rai died in service on August 21, 2018

Following his death, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondents on January 9, 2020

The rejection was based on an inquiry conducted by the District Land Acquisition Officer and District Magistrate, Saran (pursuant to Patna High Court orders in CWJC No. 3617/2017), which revealed that Plot No. 680 did not belong to the applicant’s grandfather, Late Ganni Rai

Consequently, the total land acquired fell below the 0.2-acre minimum threshold required for employment eligibility under the scheme

The respondents contended the initial appointment was obtained via fraud and was void ab initio

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment is legally sustainable when the deceased employee's initial appointment is alleged to be based on fraud or misrepresentation.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of retiral benefits despite the unresolved allegations of fraud against the deceased employee.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, intended solely to provide immediate financial relief to a deceased employee's family

It is a settled principle that appointments obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or based on void foundations (void ab initio) do not confer any legal right upon the employee or their dependents

Disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee for misconduct or fraud abate upon the death of said employee

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s right to compassionate appointment is inextricably linked to the validity of his father’s initial appointment

The respondents produced evidence from independent revenue authorities (District Land Acquisition Officer and District Magistrate) establishing that Plot No. 680—essential for meeting the 0.2-acre eligibility criteria—belonged to a third party, Ramavtar Rai, and not the applicant’s family

The Tribunal distinguished this case from precedents cited by the applicant because the inquiry was conducted by independent civil authorities under High Court directions rather than internal railway officials

Since the foundation of the father’s service was based on incorrect or false information regarding land ownership, the Tribunal held that no derivative right for compassionate appointment could accrue to the son

Regarding retiral benefits, the Tribunal noted that because the father died before disciplinary proceedings for the alleged fraud could be concluded, the charges remained unproven and the proceedings abated

Regarding retiral benefits, the Tribunal granted the applicant liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority

The respondents were directed to consider and dispose of such representation through a reasoned and speaking order within six months to determine which admissible dues, if any, are payable to the family following the abatement of disciplinary proceedings

No costs were awarded