Refusal of alternative employment after medical decategorization disentitles wards to compassionate appointment.

Applicant No. 1, a Loco Pilot (Shunting) in the South Eastern Railway, was medically decategorized from ‘A1’ category to ‘C1’ and below following a periodical medical examination and subsequent medical board review

Consequently, the Railway administration offered him an alternative sedentary post as a Junior Clerk with full pay protection

Applicant No. 1 declined the alternative offer and instead submitted a prayer for voluntary retirement (VR), which was accepted by the Competent Authority on 27/10/2010 on the grounds of him completing 20 years of regular service

Following his retirement, Applicant No. 1 submitted a representation seeking the appointment of his son (Applicant No. 2) on compassionate grounds

The applicants approached the Tribunal after the respondent authorities failed to grant the requested relief

Whether the son of a railway employee is eligible for compassionate appointment when the employee opts for voluntary retirement after being medically decategorized but found fit for an alternative lower-medical-category post

The court primarily applied the provisions of RBE No. 8/2000 dated 18/01/2000, which distinguishes between total medical incapacitation and medical decategorization; specifically, Para 4 stipulates that if an employee is fit for an alternative post but chooses voluntary retirement instead, the ward is ineligible for compassionate appointment

The court also referenced RBE No. 78/2006 and RBE No. 165/2006, which clarify that the benefit of compassionate appointment for partially decategorized staff was a time-bound provision for cases between 18/01/2000 and 14/06/2006, while subsequent cases remain governed by the restrictive criteria of the 18/01/2000 circular

The Tribunal observed that Applicant No. 1 was not declared "totally incapacitated" but was found fit for "C-1 and below" medical categories, suitable for sedentary jobs

In compliance with established procedure, the respondents offered him an alternative post (Junior Clerk) that protected his previous pay scale

The Tribunal noted that Applicant No. 1 voluntarily chose to decline this employment and sought retirement

Applying RBE No. 8/2000, the Tribunal reasoned that compassionate appointment is an exception intended to support families of employees who can no longer serve in any capacity. Since Applicant No. 1 was capable of performing alternative duties and was offered such a post, his elective retirement did not trigger the provision for compassionate appointment for his ward

The court concluded that because an alternative post was offered and refused, the prayer for compassionate appointment was inadmissible under the prevailing Railway Board instructions

No order as to costs was made