Hirdesh Kumar S/o Late Doodh Nath vs Union Of India & Ors.

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Shri Ram Kripal Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents and Shri Basant Kumar holding brief of Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 3 to 6, are present.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

By means of the present Original Application, the applicant has sought the following relief:-

“i. Issue order/direction to the opposite party no.2 to give the appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground as per rules.

ii. Pass an order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

iii. Award the cost of the application to the applicant.”

Brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant who was a regular employee and was posted as Aadesh Palak under respondent no.2 died during service period on 16.01.2018. Thereafter, the applicant made several applications before the concerned authority for appointment under the dying in harness rules but no action has been taken till date.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the son of the second wife of the deceased employee. It is further argued that the applicant’s father was working in the respondents’ Railway Department on the post of Aadesh Palak. He died on 16.01.2018 during the service period. Since the deceased employee was the only earning member in the family, a financial crisis occurred in the family due to the sudden death of the deceased employee i.e. the father of the applicant. It was further argued that the applicant had applied on dated 05.01.2021, 12.02.2022 and 02.12.2022 for compassionate appointment but no order has been passed till date. It is further argued that the first wife of the deceased employee as well as the other legal heirs have been arrayed as respondent nos. 3 to 6. Referring to the counter affidavit filed on their behalf, learned counsel for the applicant also argued that they themselves, in paragraph no.12 of their counter affidavit dated 18.02.2025, have specifically disclosed that they have already filed an affidavit in support of the applicant on dated 20.09.2022 before the competent authority mentioning therein that they have no objection if the applicant is appointed under dying in harness rules. Referring to the aforesaid fact, it was also argued that in spite of the aforesaid fact, the competent authority is not processing the prayer of the applicant. Thus, he prayed to allow the O.A. and to direct the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment.

Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the official respondent argued that since one application on behalf of the first wife of the deceased employee for appointment of her son Kanhaiya Kumar under the dying in harness rules has been moved, due to this reason, no order has been passed on the applications moved by the applicant. It is further argued that if there is any affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 6 in favour of the applicant, the competent authority will process the application of the applicant.

Brief holder of the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent nos. 3 to 6, referring to the paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit dated 18.02.2025, argued that an affidavit in support of the applicant has already been submitted by respondent nos. 3 to 6 before the competent authority. It is also argued that they have no objection if the compassionate appointment order is issued in favour of the applicant.

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.

Admittedly, the applicant is the son of the second wife of Late Doodh Nath, the deceased employee of the department who died on 16.01.2018 while working on the post of Aadesh Palak under respondent no.2. The applicant has moved a number of applications before the competent authority for appointment on compassionate ground. It further appears from the perusal of the record that no order has been passed on the prayer of the applicant till date. The stand of Respondent nos. 3 to 6 is that they have filed an affidavit in support of the applicant before the competent authority. If the pleadings taken by the parties in the O.A. as well as the counter affidavit are taken into consideration, when respondent nos. 3 to 6 themselves have admitted that they have filed an affidavit in support of the applicant before the competent authority, therefore, there would not be any impediment in processing the prayer made by the applicant. If no objection said to have been submitted by the respondent nos. 3 to 6 is not taken into consideration, then also specific order has to be passed by the competent authority on the prayer of the applicant. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the pleadings taken by the parties, the O.A. is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds after fulfilling the entire requirements as per the rules governing the issue. The applicant’s candidature should be considered positively in the next CRC meeting.

The O.A. stands disposed of with above directions. All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.