Rejection of compassionate appointment must give reasons addressing dependency and the family’s financial circumstances.

The applicant’s unmarried brother, a Railway Helper appointed under the LARSGES Scheme, died in service on 7 June 2024.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment, asserting that she had no independent income and had depended on her brother.

The respondents closed her case on the ground that no family member was dependent on the deceased; they relied, among other things, on the fact that the applicant’s father was alive and receiving a pension.

A Welfare Inspector had conducted an inquiry, but the closure order did not discuss the report.

The applicant challenged that order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the order closing the applicant’s compassionate-appointment case was invalid for failing to give reasons and address the relevant material, including the Welfare Inspector’s report.

2. Whether the applicant’s claim required fresh consideration under the applicable Railway Board instructions governing dependants of an unmarried employee who dies in harness.

Railway Board Establishment Circular (RBE) No. 70/2014 provides that a dependant of an unmarried Railway employee who dies in harness may be considered for compassionate appointment, subject to the candidate being shown to have been dependent on the employee.

Documentary material, such as inclusion in pass declarations or ration cards, may assist in establishing dependency; in its absence, the actual circumstances may be verified through a Welfare Inspector’s inquiry.

The Tribunal also applied the principle in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, that administrative decisions affecting a person prejudicially should state clear, cogent reasons, demonstrating consideration of relevant material and enabling effective review.

The closure order stated that there was no dependent family member but did not explain how the applicant’s dependency had been assessed or address the Welfare Inspector’s report.

The respondents’ reliance on the father’s pension did not, by itself, demonstrate that the authority had assessed the applicant’s claim and the family’s circumstances under RBE No. 70/2014.

Because the order did not disclose the reasoning connecting the material to the conclusion, the Tribunal found it cryptic and non-speaking.

It did not determine that the applicant was entitled to appointment; rather, it required a fresh, reasoned assessment under the applicable rules and guidelines.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s claim at the next CRC meeting, in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, on the basis of relative merit points and a fresh, thorough Welfare Inspector’s report.

No order was made as to costs.