Marriage and minor service shortfall are not absolute bars to compassionate appointment.

The applicant’s father, a Track Maintainer with the Railways since 2008, died in harness on April 8, 2022

The applicant, a married son, applied for compassionate appointment citing financial hardship

The respondents rejected the claim via orders dated August 2, 2022, and July 9, 2024, on three primary grounds: (i) the deceased had a shortfall of six months in qualifying service; (ii) the applicant is a married son; and (iii) the family was not in an indigent condition as two elder sons were employed (one as a UP Police Constable) and the family possessed immovable property

The applicant challenged these orders as arbitrary and contrary to Railway Board circulars

1. Whether a shortfall of six months in qualifying service and the marital status of a son are valid absolute bars for rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment

2. Whether the respondents properly assessed the penurious condition of the family before rejecting the application

The court applied the scheme for compassionate appointment dated October 9, 1998, read with the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated January 16, 2003, which defines "dependent family member" to include a "son" without distinguishing between married and unmarried status

The court further relied on the principle established in Ripu Daman Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 1042/2012), confirming that married sons are eligible for consideration

Broadly, the court applied the humanitarian doctrine that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate relief, where technicalities like minor service shortfalls can be relaxed under applicable Railway Board circulars

The Tribunal found the respondents' rejection based on "short service" and "marriage" to be hyper-technical and legally unsustainable

It reasoned that since the governing OM does not explicitly exclude married sons, such an exclusion is arbitrary

Regarding the shortfall in service, the court noted that Railway Board circulars allow for the relaxation of conditions in deserving cases to serve the scheme's humanitarian purpose

While the respondents argued the family was stable due to retiral benefits and the employment of other sons, the court held that mere receipt of benefits or existence of assets does not automatically disqualify a candidate; rather, the administration must conduct a "proper and objective assessment" of the actual financial distress, which was absent in this case

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and quashed the impugned orders dated July 9, 2024, and August 2, 2022. The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment afresh at the next committee meeting. The reconsideration must be based on a reasoned and speaking order, documenting marks secured under relevant criteria, and must be communicated to the applicant within one week of the decision