AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
As it reveals from the record, the applicant alleging non-consideration of his for appointment on compassionate ground consequent upon untimely death of his father on 08.12.2008 while working as Head Commercial Clerk under Sr. DCM/SDAH of Eastern Rly., has approached before the CAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in OA No. 350/3/2016 and MA No. 350/897/2019. In compliance of the order dated 29.03.2022, the Sr. DPO, Eastern Railway, communicated the applicant in letter dated 05.09.2022 as under:
“In the Instant case, since competing claim have been made for compassionate appointment by Sri Kiran Patra son of first wife as well as Sri Binod Kumar Patra, son of second wife of the deceased employee. Hence, as per provision laid down in aforesaid RBE 218/2019, the claim of Sri Kiran Patra, son of first wife of the deceased employee will have priority over the claim of Sri Binod Kumar Patra, son of second wife of the deceased employee.
In view of the above, the compassionate appointment may be considered in favour of Sri Kiran Patra, son of first wife of the deceased employee.”
Since no such appointment was provided to the applicant, he approached the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 9730/2024, which was disposed of on 28.02.2025 granting liberty to the applicant to approach this Bench. Hence, by filing the present OA he has prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue appointment in his favour as per their speaking order dated 05.09.2022.
Respondents in their counter do admit the order passed on 05.09.2022 that compassionate appointment be considered in favour of the applicant being the son of the first wife of the deceased employee but it has been stated that the compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant could not be proceeded further in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 07.05.2019 in SLP(C) No. 14010/2017 (UOI & Ors Vs Binod Kumar Patra & Anr.)
Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Binod Kumar Patra (supra) relied on by the respondents has no application insofar as providing appointment on compassionate ground to the applicant as per the order of the SDPO, E.Rly, Sealdah because in the said case the entitlement and appointment on compassionate ground of the son of the second wife was under consideration. The Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the said case by upholding the order earlier passed in the case of Union of India And Anr. Vs V.R. Tripathi, AIR 2019 SC 666. In the said case, the father of the respondent, Ramlakhan Tripathi was employed as a Technician, Grade-I in Central Railways at Mumbai. He died in harness on 28.11.2009. The deceased employee had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage. The respondent is the son born from the second marriage of the employee. The second marriage, as it appears, was contracted in 1987. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on the death of his father. The application was rejected on 6 March 2012 by the Railway Authorities. Aggrieved by the denial of compassionate appointment, the respondent moved an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal having held in favour of the respondent and upon the dismissal of a petition seeking review, the Union of India and the Railway Authorities instituted writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court finally held that the authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfills all other requirements, in accordance with law.
After giving due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, perused the records. According to the applicant, both in the pleadings as also in course of hearing that neither the son of the second wife has been provided appointment on compassionate ground nor any such application submitted by him is pending consideration. Therefore, not processing the case of the applicant for providing appointment on compassionate ground by applying the decision in the case of Binod Kumar Patra (supra) is a gross injustice caused to the applicant in the decision making process of the matter, which needs judicial interference. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents has tried to unjustify the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant by reiterating the stand taken in the counter but did not throw any light relating to the very vital aspects as to whether any such appointment was provided to the son of the second wife of the deceased or whether any such claim made by him is pending consideration.
It is established the SDPO, E.Rly, Sealdah, vide order dated 05.09.2022 after taking into consideration the various provisions on the subject issued specific order to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents that the said order has subsequently been rescinded to or withheld by the SDPO, E.Rly, Sealdah or any authority higher to him. The order is dated 05.09.2022 and, as is seen for the first time, the respondents in the counter filed on 25.07.2025 came out with a case that the case of the applicant could not be processed in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Binod Kumar Patra (supra), which shows the clear non-application of mind of the authority concerned because the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Binod Kumar Patra will come into play when similar appointment is claimed by the son of second wife of the deceased, which is not the case in hand. The position regarding grant of compassionate appointment to the ward of second wife has since been changed after issuance of RBE No. 218/2019 by the Railway Board on 30.12.2019, which states as follows:
"2. In the case of Union of India vs. V.R.Tripathi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, vide their order dated 11.12.2018 in OA No.12015/2018 (arising out of SLP ( C) No.32004/2016) dismissed on merits the Appeal filed against the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order in WP No.910/2015 and in WP No.892/2015 in two Central Railway cases that permitted consideration for grant of compassionate appointment to the child of the 2nd wife of the deceased Railway employee. Subsequently, several other judgements of Hon'ble High Courts have been received in which consideration for grant of compassionate ground appointment to a child born to the 2 nd wife of the employee has been directed based on similar ratio.
The matter has, therefore, been reviewed by Board in view of above judicial pronouncements considering also the views of the Central Agency Section of the Ministry of Law & Justice. In partial supersession of Board's Circular No.E(NG)II/91/RC-I/136 dated 02.01.1992 (RBE No.1/1992) referred to, it has now been decided that children born to the second wife may also be considered for compassionate appointment even where the second marriage has not been specifically permitted by the administration. However, since compassionate appointment after demise of the Railway employee can be considered for granting to only one dependent family member on merits, a child born to the second wife can be considered for such appointment only after ascertaining that there is no objection to this from the first wife or her children. Where the first wife (legally wedded wife) opts for such compassionate appointment either for herself or one of her own children, such claim will have priority over any competing claim made by the second wife for any of her children."
It is needless to state that the very object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds is to allow a family of a deceased employee to tide over the financial hardship caused upon untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way otherwise it will lead to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. Therefore, such claims must be considered at an earliest point of time. The above view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs State of Orissa in Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P(C) No. 936/2022) dated 20.05.2022.
In view of the discussions made above, while strongly deprecating the manner of handling the case for appointment on compassionate ground, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground as per the order of the SDPO dated 05.09.2022 and intimate the outcome of such consideration to the applicant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the result, the OA stands allowed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.