Unmarried Railwayman’s Brother Gets Fresh Compassionate-Job Review After CAT Finds Dependency Report Inadequate

The applicant’s unmarried brother, a Railway employee, died in harness on 5 December 2024.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment, asserting that he was financially dependent on his brother and that the family was in financial hardship.

The respondents rejected the claim, stating that the applicant was not shown as a dependent in the deceased employee’s service records and did not fall within the definition of family.

A Welfare Inspector’s report recorded the household’s circumstances but did not make a finding on the applicant’s dependency or adequately examine the family’s financial position.

The applicant challenged the rejection before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied Railway Master Circular No. 16, under which a blood relative may be considered a “near relative” for compassionate appointment if regarded as the family’s breadwinner.

It also applied RBE No. 70/2014 dated 8 July 2014, which permits a dependent of an unmarried Railway employee who dies in harness to be considered for compassionate appointment.

Under that instruction, documentary evidence such as inclusion in a pass or ration card is facilitative, not restrictive; where such evidence is absent, dependency may be verified through an inquiry by a Welfare Inspector.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not be treated as ineligible merely because he was not covered by the definition of the deceased employee’s family, since the applicable Railway instructions allow consideration of a dependent of an unmarried employee and recognize qualifying blood relatives.

Although the Welfare Inspector verified that six family members lived in the household and that the deceased left no movable or immovable property, the report did not determine the applicant’s dependency or adequately address the family’s financial circumstances and sources of livelihood.

It therefore did not support the conclusion that the applicant had failed to establish dependency.

The OA was disposed of, with parties bearing their own costs.

The judgment gives inconsistent dates for the impugned order: the relief sought refers to 23 February 2025, the facts refer to 25 March 2025, and the operative direction sets aside an order dated 23 March 2025.