Vandana Rakesh vs Union Of India Through Chief Secretary And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railway Administration.

In the present case, the petitioner is third daughter of Ram Prasad Tanti, he was working as Ex Tech-I, Ticket No.9899 IR in Eastern Railway

Workshop, Jamalpur and died on 26.06.2013, leaving behind his widow and three married daughters namely, Kumari Kavita Rakesh, Kumari Binita

Rakesh and Vandana Rakesh (present petitioner), who have already married in the year 2003, 2005 and on 08.03.2011 respectively. After the death

of Ram Prasad Tanti, his widow along with the present petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground and when no positive

result came to the hand of the present petitioner, she moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No.736 of 2016, which was disposed

of on 29.08.2017, giving a direction to consider her case, subject to filing of application in a prescribed format. Whereafter, her application was

entertained and a report was called for from the Railway Welfare Inspector, who submitted the report and whereafter, the final order has been passed

against the petitioner, which was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.649 of 2018 and the Tribunal, vide order dated

03.08.2018, rejected the application on two grounds. First, the petitioner has failed to produce “No Objection Certificate†from her two elder

married sisters and another, the widow of Late Ram Prasad Tanti died on 13.10.2016 and the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order on the following manner:

First, the delay has been caused on account of administrative negligence of the Railway Administration. Second, the report of Railway Welfare

Inspector was not produced either before the Central Administrative Tribunal or before this Court, nor supplied even after an application was filed by

her. The submission has been made, in order to prove the dependency, photo of Ration Card attached to the record corroborates the claim of

petitioner.

In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on the Circular issued by the Railway Administration, which makes it clear that the married

daughter, if she is dependent on bread earner, will also be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. It has further been submitted that the

present petitioner has filed the application in time, attaching all the relevant papers including the dependency certificate but, admittedly she had not

attached the “No Objection Certificateâ€​ from her two married sisters nor she has submitted as yet.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are several instances; the married daughter has been appointed and the delay, which

has been caused on account of Railway Administration, cannot be the basis for rejection of the claim of the petitioner and, as such, her case should be

considered favourably and a direction may be given for appointment of the present petitioner on compassionate ground. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has further placed reliance on the Circular, order and judgment passed by this Court. One of the orders has been passed by me (Shivaji

Pandey, J.) sitting singly, in which, the delay has also been considered and it has been held that the delay caused by the Railway Administration cannot

be a ground for deprivation of the relief. It has further been submitted that the mother of the petitioner, during life time, has supported the claim of the

petitioner and as such, there was no need to submit any “No Objection Certificateâ€​ with the application.

The counsel for the Railway Administration submits that the present petitioner is a married lady and her two sisters have already married. The mother

of the petitioner has also died in the year 2016 so, the question of running the family of the deceased employee does not arise.

The basic concept of compassionate appointment is that if the bread earner dies during the service period, in such circumstances, a Circular has been

framed to provide compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee so that the family of the deceased employee may not face

hardship on account of financial crisis. In order to mitigate hardship faced by the family such mechanism has been made, though is not in consonance

with the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly it is a public property, every citizen has right to claim over the same.

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC

138, principle has been delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the compassionate appointment is given to mitigate financial crisis on

account of death of bread earner. Applying that principle in the present case, admittedly in the present case, the deceased-employee during his life

time has performed all his liabilities, as he got married of all the daughters before his death i.e. on 26.06.2013 and his widow died on 30.10.2016. So,

the purpose, for which the compassionate appointment is sought, does not survive, as the petitioner is a married lady having a complete family and it is

not so that she has a right to get the appointment on compassionate ground but, the purpose of compassionate ground is that when the bread earner

dies, in such circumstance, the compassionate appointment is made so that the family should not be put in penury. Further, it may be a ground, delay

has been caused by the Railway Administration, but as on today, we do not feel satisfied that the purpose of compassionate appointment would be

served by giving direction for consideration of the appointment of the petitioner.

At this stage, it has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of some family dispute, the marriage is at the verge of

separation, as her husband is unemployed. However, we do not find any substance in this argument.

We do not find any merit in the present and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.