Railway Retiree’s Son’s Compassionate-Job Claim Fails: CAT Finds Father Fit for Sedentary Work in Same Medical Category

The applicant, an Additional Chief Ticket Inspector, was declared medically unfit for his post in the B-2 category on 5 March 1998, but fit in that same category for sedentary work.

The Railway offered him an alternative post as Head Clerk; he did not attend either of two scheduled interviews, and was retired on medical grounds with effect from 12 April 1999.

In 2010, the Divisional Railway Manager recommended that the applicant’s son be considered for compassionate appointment, subject to the applicable rules.

The Railway’s Chief Personnel Officer rejected the request in 2013 because the applicant’s medical category had not changed and the rules did not provide for compassionate appointment in those circumstances.

The applicant challenged that rejection before the Tribunal, seeking compassionate appointment for his son.

Whether an employee found unfit for his original post but fit for sedentary work in the same medical category qualifies as medically decategorised for purposes of compassionate appointment for a ward.

Whether the applicant’s son could obtain relief when he had not been joined as a party to the application.

The Railway Board’s Master Circular and clarification dated 12 November 2014 provide that an employee is medically decategorised only when declared unfit both for the original post and the original medical category, but fit in a lower medical category or post; compassionate-appointment claims on medical decategorisation are to be considered on that basis.

The Tribunal also relied on its decision in OA No. 200/00239/2017, which held that fitness in the same medical category does not entitle an employee’s ward to compassionate appointment.

The judgment further treated the son, for whose appointment relief was sought, as a necessary party to the proceedings.

The medical certificate showed that the applicant was unfit for ACTI duties involving strenuous train-running work, but remained fit in B-2 for sedentary work. Because he was not declared fit only in a lower medical category, he did not meet the Railway Board’s test for medical decategorisation.

The Railway’s offer of an alternative post in the same category, which the applicant did not pursue, was consistent with that assessment.

The DRM’s 2010 note was only a recommendation to examine the claim under the applicable rules; it did not create a right to appointment, and the Chief Personnel Officer rejected the claim on that basis.

The Tribunal also noted that the son had not been impleaded.

It found no infirmity in the respondents’ decision and dismissed the Original Application as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.