Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Smt Munni Devi vs Northern Railway on 8 November, 2024
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00169 of 2023 Smt. Muni Devi Vs. U.O.I.& Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No.00169/2023
Dated this 8th day of November, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Smt. Munni Devi, A/A 38 years, daughter of Late Ram Narayan, wife of
Late Hansraj, resident of village Godiyan Purwa, Post Saidpur, Tehsil
Rudauli, District Ayodhya.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Kumar
VERSUS
1. The Union of India through Ministry of Railways, the Secretary Rail
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (Delhi Division), Northern Railway, New
Delhi.
4. Deputy Chief Engineer, Bridge Line, Tilak Bridge, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to compassionate appointment, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
(a) To issue pass an order or directions to the authorities concerned to consider the claim of the applicant to be appointed on the compassionate ground.
(b) To issue pass an order or directions to the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground.
(c) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case is also granted along with cost of the OA.Page 1 of 4
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00169 of 2023 Smt. Muni Devi Vs. U.O.I.& Ors.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant's father died in harness on 10.11.2007 while working under the respondents. The applicant's mother made a representation dated 10.06.2008 for appointment of the applicant, who was married, on compassionate ground. The representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 29.12.2008. The applicant's husband died in the year 2015. Her mother also passed away in the year 2021. The applicant has now approached this Tribunal claiming her right to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
3. The applicant states that after the death of her husband, she was being maintained by her mother who was getting the family pension. After her mother's death in 2021, she is claiming appointment on compassionate ground as the Railway Board's letter dated 31.05.2011 provides that claims for compassionate appointment could be considered upto the period of 25 years after the death of employee, and as she has no source of livelihood to maintain her wards/dependents.
4. The respondents state that the applicant's case was not found fit for compassionate appointment vide order dated 29.12.2008 as she was married. Paragraph (III) of Master Circular 16 dated 12.12.1990 allows case for compassionate appointment to be kept pending when the widow cannot take up employment and the sons/daughters are minor, till the first son/daughter becomes a major, i.e., attains 18 years of age. Further, paragraph (V)(a)(ii) of Master Circular 16 dated 12.12.1990 provides that normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years; this period can be relaxed by the General Manager provided the case should not be more than ten years old as reckoned from the date of death. As per paragraph (4) of Railway Board's letter dated 31.05.2011, cases which have already been decided need not be re-opened.
Page 2 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00169 of 2023 Smt. Muni Devi Vs. U.O.I.& Ors.
5. Heard both the parties.
6.1 It is noticed that in the Master Circular No. 16 relating to appointment on compassionate ground there is provision for compassionate appointment within a period of five years from the death of the railway employee in harness which can be relaxed upto ten years by the General Manager.
6.2 In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana 1994 AIR SCW 2305, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
(emphasis supplied) Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 03.03.2023 in The State of West Bengal vs Debabrata Tiwari & Ors, has made the following observations:
"7.1.i...
v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC
162. In the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it was declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis."
(emphasis supplied) It follows from the above that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be construed as a never ending entitlement to be invoked at any point of time. It is, rather, a scheme to provide succor to the family to Page 3 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00169 of 2023 Smt. Muni Devi Vs. U.O.I.& Ors. help deal with the immediate and continuing crisis following the employee's death in harness.
6.4 In the case at hand, the representation for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected in 2008. The applicant neither pursued the matter for reconsideration with the respondents nor challenged the order dated 29.12.2008 turning down the application for her appointment on compassionate ground. In view of this position, it is not open for the applicant to lay claim on compassionate appointment after a gap of 15 years.
7.1 In view of the foregoing this OA lacks merit and is dismissed. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar)
Member (A)
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2024.11.12
10:13:43 +05'30'
Page 4 of 4