Kashi Devi @ Kaushaliya Devi & Ors vs Union Of India Through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur & Ors

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to appoint the applicant NO.2 on compassionate ground in place of his father.

(ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iii) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant”.

The brief facts of the case are that father of applicant No.2 was employed as casual labour under respondent No.2. Father of applicant No.2 had worked from 16.06.1982 to 15.10.1983 and further from 16.01.1985 to 15.09.1985. In compliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, respondents had maintained live casual labour register in which name of father of applicant No.2 mentioned. Father of applicant No. 2 died on 03.11.2011. Respondent NO.2 in compliance of order of the Tribunal dated 11.09.2018, respondents should have been engaged the father of the applicant No.2.

The main relief sought by the applicant through this OA is that applicant No.2 may be appointed on compassionate ground. The preliminary objection filed by the respondents that the father of the applicant NO.2 had worked as casual labour from 16.06.1982 to 15.10.1983 and further from 16.01.1985 to 15.09.1985 in the respondents’ organization. Applicants have not placed on record any document which shows that the father of applicant NO.2 was worked in the department subsequent to 15.09.1985. It has been stated by the respondents in their preliminary objection that father of applicant No. 2 was not in service while he expired on 26.10.2011 and no case was filed by the father of applicant No.2 for re-engagement was pending before any competent court of law. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments of Hon’ble Court:-

(i) D. Jagannathan IAS Vs. S. Sattanahan and others reported in 2013 0 Supreme (Mad) 3487;

(ii) Ayaaubhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 58

(iii) Rajmati Devi and another Vs. Union of India and others decided on 20.01.2023 in OA No. 935/2019.

I have heard Shri Sunil holding brief of Shri Ashish Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record as well as written submission filed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

In the present case, relief claimed in the OA is for appointment of applicant No. 2 on compassionate grounds. As per, the scheme for compassionate appointment formulated by the DOPT, it is applicable for the regular employees. The relevant part of Scheme is quoted below:-

“CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS MAY BE MADE: Appointments on Compassionate grounds are offered to the dependents of regular railway servants who lose their lives in the course of duty or die in harness or otherwise while in service or are medically incapacitated/decategorised. The circumstances in which Compassionate Appointments may be made are as under:

a) Due to death of the railway servant while on duty/in service.

b) In the case of railway servants whose whereabouts are not known for a period of more than two years and the settlement dues have been paid to 2 the family (Subject to fulfillment of other conditions in Railway Board’s letter No.E(NG)II/97/RC-1/210 dated 26.07.1998) and

c) In the case of medical invalidation of the railway servant in all medical classifications followed by voluntary retirement”.

From the perusal of judgment referred to above, it makes clear that no dependent will be given compassionate appointment if his parent was not a regular government servant. It is also clear from the perusal of scheme for compassionate appointment that appointment on compassionate grounds is offered to the dependent of regular railway servant. In the instant case, the father of the applicant No. 2 was a casual labour under the respondents and he died before he was regularized. He has also not been given temporary status. As per the settled legal position no compassionate appointment could be given to a person whose father was not a regular employee. Admittedly, the father of applicant No.2 was not regularized on any post, hence his dependent is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

Accordingly, OA is dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are also disposed of.