Non-inclusion in railway pass or medical records cannot alone defeat compassionate appointment consideration.

The applicant’s unmarried brother, a Railway employee, died in service on 16 January 2018.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment, asserting that he and their father had depended on the deceased.

Although the deceased had named them in his service records, the Railway rejected the claim, principally because the applicant was not included in the deceased’s pass declaration and medical facility.

The applicant challenged the rejection orders before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the applicant could be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment solely because he was not included in the deceased employee’s pass declaration and medical facility.

2. Whether the respondents were required to investigate the applicant’s dependency and the family’s financial circumstances before deciding his claim.

The Tribunal relied on Railway Board Circular RBE No. 165/99 dated 5 August 1999, under which inclusion in a pass declaration is a facilitating factor, not a restrictive condition; where dependency is not established through the pass declaration, it may be assessed through ration-card evidence or a Welfare Inspector’s investigation.

It also noted Railway Board Circular RBE No. 70/2014 dated 8 July 2014 concerning consideration of a dependent brother or sister where the deceased employee was unmarried.

Compassionate appointment is intended to address the family’s financial crisis and is not an employment right; nomination in service records, by itself, does not establish entitlement.

The impugned orders rejected the applicant’s claim on the basis of his non-inclusion in the pass declaration and medical facility, without recording an assessment of the family’s financial condition or the applicant’s dependency on the deceased’s income.

That approach was inconsistent with RBE No. 165/99, which permits dependency to be established through other evidence, including a Welfare Inspector’s investigation.

The Tribunal therefore required a fresh and thorough investigation and a decision based on relative merit points, rather than treating non-inclusion in the pass and medical records as conclusive.

The investigation was also to ascertain the status of the applicant’s other brother, Kaushalendra.

The judgment records the order dated 18.08.2020 as set aside, noting that 18.03.2020 was “wrongly printed” in the relief clause; it otherwise identifies the challenged orders as dated 21.03.2018 and 27.08.2020.

The application was disposed of with no order as to costs.