Official certificates establishing relationship prevail over internal departmental records for compassionate appointment claims.

The father of Applicant No. 2, Puran Miyan, was a Trackman in East Central Railway who died in harness on July 9, 2016

Applicant No. 2 applied for a compassionate appointment on August 24, 2018, which was rejected by the respondent department on May 30, 2019

The rejection was primarily based on the absence of Applicant No. 2's name in the Railway Pass declaration forms submitted by the deceased employee during his lifetime

The applicants challenged this before the Tribunal, which directed a fresh representation. Subsequently, the respondents issued a second rejection order on March 20, 2020, asserting that since the deceased was literate, the omission of the son’s name in official records could not be attributed to illiteracy and therefore the relationship was doubtful

The applicants provided several documents, including educational certificates and a genealogical table from the Circle Office, to establish the parentage

1. Whether the absence of a dependent's name in departmental Railway Pass records is conclusive proof to deny a familial relationship for compassionate appointment

2. Whether the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment was legally sustainable in light of the official external evidence and the socio-economic objectives of the scheme

The court applied the principles governing the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, emphasizing that its primary objective is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee in distress

It held that departmental records, such as Railway Pass declarations, carry evidentiary value but are not conclusive proof of relationship and must be weighed against substantive contemporaneous evidence issued by local authorities

The court also recognized that certificates issued by competent local authorities (e.g., Circle Office family lists) carry a presumption of correctness unless specifically rebutted

The Tribunal found the respondents' reliance on departmental records to be "narrow and technical"

It noted that the applicants produced multiple official documents—including genealogical tables and Circle Office certificates—which consistently identified Applicant No. 2 as the son of the deceased, and the respondents failed to provide any material to discredit these as fabricated

The Tribunal highlighted a "highly contradictory stand" by the respondent official, who had previously cast aspersions on the deceased's declarations (noting he had included names of deceased sons in the past) yet relied on the same records to deny the existence of Applicant No. 2

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that while the official claimed the deceased was literate, the records showed the employee could barely sign his name and the form entries were made by others

The Tribunal accepted the explanation that Applicant No. 2 was omitted from pass records because he resided elsewhere for studies

It set aside the impugned order dated March 20, 2020. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and directed the respondents to reconsider the case of Applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment in accordance with applicable rules and policy when the next committee is convened

No order as to costs was made