Gs Krishna vs South Central Railway on 8 April, 2026

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad

Gs Krishna vs South Central Railway on 8 April, 2026

                                                                                            1
                                                                                                                       OA.No.2182/2024

                                                                       CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                                                                         HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD

                                                                      ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/02182/2024

                                                                                                ORDER RESERVED ON 09.03.2026
                                                                                                DATE OF ORDER: 08.04.2026

     HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

 1. G.S.Krishna, S/o. S.Ramesh, aged 58 years
    Ex.Loco Pilot (Goods) Gr.C
    D.No.7-550, S.S.Palli Road
    Ananthapur District, Gooty-515401
    Andhrapradesh.

 2. S.Ramesh, S/o G.S.Krishna, aged 26 years
    D.No.7-550, S.S.Palli Road
    Ananthapur District, Gooty-515401
    Andhrapradesh.                                                                                                 .....Applicants

                                                                            (By Advocate: Sri G.Trinadha Rao)

     Vs.

 1. Union of India, rep. by
    The General Manager, South Central Railway
    Rail Nilayam, III Floor
    Secunderabad - 500 071.

 2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer
    South Central Railway, Railnilayam
    4th Floor, Secunderabad.

 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
    Guntakal Division, South Central Railway
    Secunderabad.                                                                                                ....Respondents

                                                                      (By Advocate: Sri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.PC for CG)



                                                                                          *****




            Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA


PANDIRLAP   DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=
            CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT
            OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E=
            [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
            35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181

   ALLI     3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN
            HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber=
            ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a
            510742c22


 SANDHYA
            Reason: I am the author of this document
            Location:
            Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30'
            Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
                                                                                2
                                                                                                         OA.No.2182/2024

                                                                              ORDER

PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

"To call for records leading to and connected with the impugned proceedings No.SCR/P-GTL/122/CGA/APO(M)/37/18 dated 10.04.2023, declare and set aside the same as illegal, unjust and against the Article 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the 2 nd Applicant on compassionate grounds to the post and grade he is eligible forthwith and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Facts of the case, as per the Applicant, are summarised below:

i. The 1st Applicant, while working as Loco Pilot (Goods), was found medically unfit for the duties of the said post, according to the certificate, dt.31.07.2014, issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent. The 1st Applicant, consequent upon his medical decategorisation, sought Voluntary Retirement (VR, in short) on 15.02.2016 and compassionate appointment for his son, the 2nd Applicant, as a consequence of voluntary retirement, owing to his medical decategorisation. He submitted reminders, dt.12.05.2016 and 01.11.2016. Applicant No.2 is a 26 years old graduate in B.Com (Computers).

ii. After considerable delay, Respondents accepted his voluntary retirement, w.e.f.10.02.2018, by the proceedings, dt.02.02.2018, of the 3rd Respondent. The Applicant was also advised, vide proceedings No.SCR/P/GTL/122/CGA/APO(M)/37/18, dt.20.03.2018, by the 3 rd Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 3 OA.No.2182/2024 Respondent, to come to office on 10.04.2018 for verification of documents and, accordingly, the Applicant, along with his son (A-2), attended the office of the 3rd Respondent and submitted the required documents for verification. Respondents collected the requisite documents to process the request for compassionate appointment to the 2nd Applicant. While the Applicants were under the legitimate expectation that the 2nd Applicant would be provided with compassionate appointment, subject to which the voluntary retirement was accepted, strangely, Respondents rejected his request compassionate appointment to his son, vide letter, dt.25.03.2019, despite having accepted the request of Applicant No.1 for voluntary retirement.

iii. Applicants had filed OA.No.664/2019, challenging the action of the Respondents in rejecting their case for compassionate appointment, as contrary to law and the Railway Board Proceedings, dt.14.06.2006, which provides for compassionate appointment to the wife/wards/dependents of partially medically decategorised staff who seek voluntary retirement. The Applicants also, by their representation, dt.25.05.2019, stated specific instances of such cases where the respondent authorities had granted compassionate appointment to similarly situated persons and pleaded that they should not be discriminated against in the matter.

iv. It is submitted that the case was contested by the Respondents by filing their reply, inter-alia stating that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, though the facts were not disputed. The Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 4 OA.No.2182/2024 Tribunal, having considered Railway Board letter, dt.14.06.2006, and the PCPO letter, dt.15.03.2019, referring to a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mentioned in the order, categorically recorded a finding that the 1st Applicant had more than 5 years of service left to retire, as required for seeking compassionate appointment for his ward, therefore, based on the above order of the Railway Board, the 2nd Applicant is entitled to compassionate appointment. It was also recorded that, as the specific instances of 9 cases in the representation, dt.25.05.2019, of the Applicants, was not denied by the Respondents in their reply and, silence being acquiescence, similarly placed employees have to be extended similar benefits as per the legal position settled by the Supreme Court.

v. Applicants also submit that it was the categoric observation of the Tribunal in their order, at page 6, that the Respondents have not explained as to why they did not intimate the 1st Applicant, before his retirement, that his ward would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. The 1st Applicant should not suffer because of the mistake or delay on the part of the department.

vi. The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides and perusing the pleadings on record, upon adjudication, on 31.12.2020, passed the following order:

"VII. In view of the above, the OA fully succeeds both from the perspective of rules and law. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment to the grade he is eligible as per rules and law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order."

VIII. With the above directions, the OA is allowed. No order as to costs."

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 5 OA.No.2182/2024 vii. It is also the contention of the Applicants that the Respondents have not filed any Writ Petition against the order and judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal and, hence, the order of the Tribunal in OA.No.664/2019, attained finality. However, in order to circumvent the orders of the Tribunal, Respondents issued proceedings, dt.11.02.2021, rejecting the case of the 2nd Applicant, contrary to the Tribunal order, dt.31.12.2020.

The Contempt Petition No.48 of 2021 filed by the Applicants was closed by orders, dt.23.07.2021, of this Tribunal, granting liberty to the Applicants for filing fresh OA, "in case the grievance still subsists".

viii. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection order, dt.11.02.2021, Applicants filed OA.No.611 of 2021, contending that similarly situated nine persons were granted compassionate appointment; the Applicants are invidiously discriminated and that the earlier OA.No.664 of 2019 was adjudicated on the very same set of facts and was allowed by this Tribunal, vide order, dt.31.12.2020, which attained finality and, therefore, the Respondents are duty-bound to consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for CGA.

ix. The Tribunal, by order, dt.10.01.2023, having perused the letter, dt.15.03.2019, and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned therein, categorically held that the letter, dt.15.03.2019, is contrary to Para 1302 of IREM. The Tribunal held that it is a fit case for being reconsidered for compassionate appointment, as per the prevailing rules and scheme, at the relevant point of time, dehors the letter, dt.15.03.3019, of the PCPO/SC, and set aside the impugned Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 6 OA.No.2182/2024 order, dt.11.02.2021, directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment.

x. Respondents once again rejected the case of the Applicants, vide their order, dt.10.04.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the same, CP.No.53/2023 was filed. The same was closed by order, dt.06.06.2024, granting liberty to the Applicants to pursue their grievance, by availing appropriate remedies before the appropriate court. Hence, the OA.

3. The grounds advanced for relief are as follows -

i. The impugned proceedings are contrary to facts and law. Respondents, having accepted and allowed the judgment, dt.31.12.2020, of the Tribunal in OA.No.664 of 2019, and the judgment, dt.10.01.2023, in OA.No.611/2021, to attain finality, ought to have granted compassionate appointment to the 2nd Applicant in the light of the judicial findings of the Tribunal.

ii. Respondents ought to have seen that, by virtue of the Tribunal order, dt.10.01.2023, in OA.No.611/2021, it is a fit case for being reconsidered for compassionate appointment, as per the prevailing rules, dehors the letter, dt.15.03.2019, of the PCPO/SC, and should not have relied upon the very same letter of the PCPO for rejecting the case of the Applicants for CGA.

iii. The impugned proceedings, relying on the same old Railway Board letter, dt.14.06.2006, and PCPO letter, dt.15.03.2019, being the ground raised in the impugned letter, is contrary to law and hit by the principles of resjudicata/constructive resjudicata.

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 7 OA.No.2182/2024 iv. Rejecting the case of the Applicants, by the impugned orders, while extending the benefit of compassionate appointment, in 9 similarly situated cases, is a case of invidious discrimination by the Respondents, which is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. On notice, Respondents have appeared through their Counsel and filed a detailed Reply Statement, wherein their submissions are as follows -

i. Sri G.S.Krishna, Applicant No.1, while working as Loco Pilot (Goods) in the office of the Chief Crew Controller/Gooty, Guntakal Division, reported sick from 08.07.2014 at the Railway Hospital/Guntakal. He was found medically unfit for the duties of his original post of Loco Pilot and fit for the job not involving train running and train passing duties in Aye-One (A-1) & below, with NV glasses, vide Medical Certificate No.666946, dt.31.07.2014. At the time of screening, an alternative post of Sr.Technician/C&W in the Mechanical Department was identified and allotted to the Applicant, vide letter No.SCR/P-

GTL/143/CON/VOL.XXII, dt.08.01.2015. However, the Applicant did not join the allotted post. Instead, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 01.11.2016, w.e.f. 28.02.2017. The same was accepted w.e.f.10.02.2018, vide Memorandum, dt.02.02.2018.

ii. Further, Sri G.S.Krishna, Applicant No.1, submitted an application on 09th March, 2018, seeking Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA) for his son, Sri S.Ramesh (Applicant No.2), due to his medical decategorization. Considering the same, the Chief Staff and Welfare Inspector, Guntakal Division, conducted an inquiry and submitted a Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 8 OA.No.2182/2024 report, on 12.03.2018. Thereafter, Applicant No.2 was instructed to attend document verification on 20.03.2018. While things stood thus, a doubt arose, as Applicant No.1 was not decategorised to lower medical standards, but was declared fit in Aye-One medical classification only, except being declared unfit for train passing duties and, therefore, the competent authority took a decision on 14.05.2018, to obtain further clarification from the Headquarters to deal with the above case. It was informed that, in a similar case, on reference from the Sr.Divisional Personnel Officer, Nanded, it was clarified by the Principal Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO), Secunderabad, under Lr.No.P(R )8/IV, dt.08.02.2016, that an employee, who is made fit in the same medical category, with recommendations for change of duties, is not considered to be decategorised/invalidated to lower medical standards and, hence, in such cases, appointment on compassionate grounds is not to be considered. The above clarification has been issued by the PCPO office, keeping in view Railway Board clarification in a similar matter given to the Western Railway, on 02.11.2006. Applicant No.1 was informed about his ward's ineligibility for appointment for medical reasons on compassionate grounds. Documents in respect of Applicant No.1 were examined in accordance with Railway Board Instructions, dt.02.11.2006 (Ann.R-7), and as per the clarification issued by the PCPO/SCR/SC, vide their letter No.P(R)8/IV, dt.15.03.2019 (Ann.R-12). Appointment on compassionate grounds is to be considered only in cases where an employee has been medically decategorised or incapacitated. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 9 OA.No.2182/2024 iii. It is argued that, in this case, Applicant No.1, Sri G.S.Krishna, was medically found fit in the same medical category i.e., Aye-One (A-1) & Below, with NV glasses, and was recommended for a change of duties, without involving train running or passing duties. It is concluded that, as per the instructions in the Railway Board letter No.E(NG)II/95/RC-1/94, dated 14.06.2006, "compassionate grounds appointment to the wife/wards/dependent of partially medically decategorised staff (fit in lower medical classification) who seek voluntary retirement can be considered in Group-D categories (erstwhile), when they have at least 05 years or more service left and these instructions are not fulfilling in this case." Further, the same position has been specified in Railway Board instructions, vide letter No.E(NG)II/2006/WR/2, dt.02.11.2006, and letter No.P(R8)/IV, dt.15.03.2019. Therefore, the applicants' request for appointment to A- 2, on compassionate grounds, was not considered. iv. Aggrieved by the above, the Applicant filed OA.No.664/2019, which was disposed of by this Tribunal, on 31.12.2020, with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment to the grade he is eligible, as per rules and Law.

v. It is contended that, in compliance with the orders of this Tribunal stated supra, the case of the Applicant was considered and proceedings were issued on 11.02.2021, leading to Contempt Petition being filed before this Tribunal, regarding rejection of CGA to the 2nd Applicant. Compliance reply was filed in CP No.48/2021, in OA.No.664/2019, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 10 OA.No.2182/2024 by the 4th Respondent, duly submitting the Railway Board rules/instructions relied upon while rejecting the request for CGA, upon which the CP was closed.

vi. Sri G.S.Krishna, filed another OA No.611/2021, regarding CGA in favour of the 2nd Applicant which was earlier rejected by the Railway Administration. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal disposed it of, on 10.01.2023, with directions to the Respondents -

"to reconsider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate ground appointment as per rules and scheme, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

In obedience to the said orders, the case of the Applicants was reconsidered and a reasoned order was passed, vide office letter, dt.10.04.2023. The Applicants filed Contempt Petition No.53 of 2023 in OA.No.611 of 2021, before this Tribunal, which was also closed.

vii. Further, it is submitted that appointment on medical decategorisation is not automatic and it is subject to objective assessment by the competent authority, of financial and other conditions of the family, showing indigent circumstances, as a result of the bread winner demitting service on medical grounds.

viii. Respondents have cited the following departmental rules and instructions in support of the action taken by them -

a. It is submitted that, vide Lr.No.E(NG)I-2004/RE-3/9, dt.04.01.2007 (RBE No.4/07), the Railway Board has clarified that the scheme of absorption of disabled/medically decategorised staff in alternative employment on their retention in supernumerary Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 11 OA.No.2182/2024 posts, on the one hand, and the scheme of voluntary retirement, on the other, are independent of each other and the instructions regulating the former do not, in any way, interfere with the latter.

b. In terms of Para 1302 of the IREM (Indian Railway Establishment Manual), Volume-I, Railway servants, acquiring disability during service and declared medically unfit, are divisible into two groups:

a. Those completely disabled for further service in any post in the Railway, i.e., those who cannot be declared fit even in the 'C' medical category; and b. Those disabled/incapacitated for further service in the post they are holding but declared fit in a lower medical category and eligible for retention in service in posts corresponding to this lower medical category.

The Applicant, it is argued, does not fit into any of the above two grounds and, hence, his case cannot be taken as being that of medical decategorisation.

c. As per Railway Board Lr.No.E(NG)/II/95/RC-1/94, dt.14.06.2006, RBE No.78/2006, compassionate ground appointment to the wife/wards/dependents of partially medically de-

categorised staff, who seek voluntary retirement, is provided for in erstwhile eligible Group "D" posts, provided the employees are declared partially decategorised at a time when they have at least 5 years or more left-over service on the date of medical decategorisation. Appointment on compassionate ground is considered only in a case where an employee has been medically Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 12 OA.No.2182/2024 decategorised with recommendations of being fit in lower medical group. In the present case, A1 was found medically fit in the same group of Aye-One and below, for other posts and, hence, the above RB instructions are not applicable to him. Further, he had been offered alternative employment of Sr.Technician, in equivalent scale, which he declined.

ix. The ground for ineligibility for CGA in the situation in which the Applicant was placed, was clarified by the PCPO, vide their letter, dt.08.02.2016, received in the office of the Respondents on 22.04.2018, by which time, the Applicant had retired from service. Further, a reference was made to the PCPO office to confirm whether the clarification issued to the Sr.DPO/Nanded, in terms of Board's letter, dt.02.11.2006, was still applicable or otherwise, upon which it was clarified by the PCPO office, vide Lr.No.P(R)8/IV, dt.15.03.2019, that the instructions were still in vogue. In the light of the same, the representation of the Applicant was disposed of on 25.03.2019, informing him that his ward is not eligible for compassionate appointment as Applicant No.1 was made fit in the same medical category of Aye-One with recommendation for change of duties, and, thus, he cannot be treated as being medically decategorised/medically invalidated.

x. It is further submitted that the Applicant, in his representations seeking voluntary retirement from service, relied upon Railway Board letter, dt.08.07.2014 (RBE No.70/2014). However, the Railway Board had modified some of the instructions, which were misinterpreted by the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 13 OA.No.2182/2024 Applicant. The said instructions do not automatically vest any right in the employee to claim appointment on compassionate grounds.

xi. Respondents have also relied on the following judgments of various Courts -

a. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Sivamurthy & Anr. Vs. State of A.P. & Ors in Civil Appeal No.4210 of 2003, while dealing with the scheme of dependent employment, when employee retired on medical invalidation grounds, has observed as under:

"There are of course safeguards to be taken to ensure the scheme is not misused. One is to ensure that mere medical unfitness to continue in a post is not treated as medical invalidation for the purposes of compassionate appointment. A government servant should totally cease to be employable and become a burden on his family, to warrant compassionate appointment to a member of his family. Another is barring compassionate appointments to dependants of an employee who seeks voluntary retirement on medical grounds on the verge of superannuation. This Court observed in Ram Kesh Yadav [(2007) 9 SCC 53]: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 559] as follows: (SCC p.535, Para 9) "9. ...But for such a condition, there will be tendency on the part of employee nearing the age of superannuation to take advantage of the scheme and seek voluntary retirement at the fag end of their service on medical grounds and thereby virtually creating employment by 'succession'. It is not permissible for the court to relax the said condition relating to age of the employee. Whenever a cut-off date or age is prescribed, it is bound to cause hardship in marginal cases, but that is no ground to hold the provision as directory and not mandatory."

b. In the case of Yogender Pal Singh vs. Union of India [1987 (1) SCC 631], it was held that -

"Opportunity to get into public service should be extended to all the citizens equally and should not be confined to any extent to the descendants or relatives of a person already in the service of the state or who has retired from the service. Any preference shown in the matter of public employment on the ground of descent only has to be declared as unconstitutional."

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 14 OA.No.2182/2024 c. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Ram Kesh Yadav [2007(9) SCC 531], had observed that "there is no doubt that an employer cannot be directed to act contrary to the terms of its policy governing compassionate appointments nor can compassionate appointment be directed dehors the policy". d. Respondents have also relied on the judgment in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken note of the object underlying the rules providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and has held that the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased. e. In MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh in Civil Appeal No.6348 of 2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that the Courts and the Tribunals cannot confer benediction, impelled by sympathetic consideration, to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such appointments.

f. In the case of A.Umarani vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 112, even the Supreme Court was cautioned against exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to issue a direction to give compassionate appointment in contravention of the provisions of the Scheme/Rules, etc., as the provisions have to be complied with, mandatorily, and any appointment given or ordered to be given in violation of the scheme would be illegal.

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 15 OA.No.2182/2024 g. OA.No.664/2019 was decided, on 31.12.2020, with the following order -

"In view of the above, the OA fully succeeds both from perspective of rules and law.

Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment to the grade he is eligible as per rules and law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order."

In obedience to the above orders, the case of the Applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was re-examined and the representation was disposed of, on 11.02.2021. It is argued by the Respondents that, as per the existing rules and law, A-2 was ineligible.

xii. a. It is also submitted that the case of the nine employees, who are similarly situated as the Applicant, had been erroneously considered by the administration. These cases were considered prior to receipt of the clarification from the PCPO office, vide letter, dt.08.02.2016, of which a copy was received in the office of the Respondents on 22.04.2018.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law in the case of Chandigarh Administration vs. Naurang Singh - (1997) 4 SCC 177, as follows -

"We are, however, of the opinion that a mistake committed by the Administration cannot furnish a valid or legitimate ground for the Court or the Tribunal to direct the Administration to go on repeating that mistake. ....... The Administration no doubt could have rectified that mistake. That would have been the most appropriate course but their failure to do so cannot entitle the respondents to say that mistake should form a basis for giving the higher pay scale to them also. ....... As stated above that was really the pay scale admissible to the post of Assistants which was a promotion post to storekeepers. Both these posts cannot be given the same pay scale. An evident mistake cannot constitute a valid basis for compelling the administration to keep on repeating that mistake."

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 16 OA.No.2182/2024 b. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in R.Muthuskumar vs. the Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO, 2022 SCC online SC 151, decided on 07.02.2022, that if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. Thus, the same mistake cannot be repeated in the case of the Applicant, as the rules do not permit appointment on compassionate grounds in this case.

c. Further, in the case of Raj Kumar Soni vs. State of U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635, it was held that -

'It is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court can refuse to exercise its discretion if striking down such an order will result in restoration of another order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise not in accordance with law'.

5. Learned Counsel for the Applicants has made written submission, reiterating the points made in the OA as well as his oral pleadings. He has further added that-

i. The 1st Applicant, a medically de-categorised Loco Pilot, sought voluntary retirement by his applications, dt.15.02.2016, 12.05.2016 and 01.11.2016, seeking employment for his son, the 2nd Applicant, on compassionate ground. According to him, the Applicant's request for voluntary retirement and for compassionate appointment was accepted by letter, dt.02.02.2018.

ii. In OA.No.664/2019, in its order, dt.31.12.2020, this Tribunal, referring to and considering Railway Board's letter, dt.14.06.2006, and a catena of Supreme Court judgments and the fact of extending similarly placed employees the benefit of compassionate appointment, declared that the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 17 OA.No.2182/2024 2nd Applicant is entitled to compassionate appointment. Relevant order reads as follows:

"In view of the above, the OA fully succeeds both from the perspective of rules and law. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment to the grade he is eligible as per law within the period of a months from the date of receipt of this order."

The Respondents rejected the case of the Applicants, by order, dt.11.02.2021, relying on the very same Railway Board letter, dt.14.06.2006, and CPO letter, dt.15.03.2019, which were already considered by the Tribunal.

iii. The Applicants further filed OA.No.611 of 2021, challenging the rejection order, dt.11.02.2021. This Tribunal, while disposing of the OA, on 10.01.2023, observed that -

"The very same of PCPO/SC dt.15.03.2019 was subject matter of the earlier OA.664/2019 and having considered all the material on record and the respective contentions, this tribunal allowed the said OA while observing that the 2nd Applicant is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. Thus it was clearly held that the OA fully succeeded and respondents were directed to consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment to grade he is eligible. Despite the same the respondents rejected the case of the Applicants citing the very same clarification dt.15.03.2019 once again, which is not permissible under Law. As per the record, the order in the earlier OA No.663/2019 has attained finality. Therefore, respondents cannot once again cite the same letter for negating the relief to the Applicant."

iv. According to the Applicant, the Tribunal, finally, categorically held that it is a fit case for being reconsidered for compassionate appointment as per the prevailing rules and scheme at the relevant point of time, dehors the letter of PCPO/SC, dt.15.03.2019. It is further held that -

"In view of the above, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the same of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment as per rules and scheme, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 18 OA.No.2182/2024 The Respondents once again rejected the claim, on the same grounds, by order, dt.10.04.2023, despite the order in OA.No.611 of 2021. Thereafter, the Contempt Petition No.53 of 2023 was closed by order, dt.06.06.2024, granting liberty to the applicants to agitate their left-over grievances, by availing remedy before the appropriate Court. v. It is also argued that, despite clear directions in OA.664/2019 and OA.611/2021, both of which attained finality, respondents have repeatedly rejected the claim on the same grounds, relying on the very same PCPO letter of 15.03.2019, vide order, dt.10.04.2023, which is hit by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. In this context, the Applicants place reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters of Daryao and others vs. The State of U.P. and others, decided on 27.03.1961, wherein it was held that the general principle of Resjudicata, which has its foundation on consideration of public policy, namely, (1) that binding decision of Courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, and, (2) that no person should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice, applies to the Applicants under Article 32 of the Constitution. Since the finding in OA.664/2019, that the 2nd Applicant is entitled to be considered for appointment, is a judicial determination of rights, Respondents cannot circumvent the binding orders by issuing fresh rejection orders on the same grounds.

vi. The Applicant's representation, dt.25.05.2019, specifically cited 9 similarly placed cases, where compassionate appointment was granted. In the earlier round, the respondents did not deny these instances. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 19 OA.No.2182/2024 Denying appointment to the Applicants, while granting it to others, who are similarly placed, is invidious discrimination and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

vii. According to the Applicants, Respondents have issued repetitive rejection orders, forcing the Applicants to approach this Tribunal multiple times over 5 years. This is contrary to the principle that Government should act as a model litigant, avoiding technical objections and needless prolongation of litigation.

viii. It is also submitted that, in the light of repeated adjudication in favour of the Applicant and the Respondents' deliberate non-compliance, the OA deserves to be allowed with a positive mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the 2nd Applicant, forthwith, to a suitable post, as per rules, without once again sending the matter for "reconsideration".

6. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

7. Admittedly, this is the third round of litigation, after disposal of the earlier two OAs, i.e., OA.No.664/2019, on 31.12.2020, and OA.No.611/2021, on 10.01.2023. Learned counsel for the Applicants quoted extensively from the orders in OAs. 664/2019 and 611/2021, whereby, agreeing with the contentions of the Applicants, the case of A-2 was sent for consideration/reconsideration for compassionate appointment. Respondents have repeatedly rejected the representations of the Applicants for compassionate appointment on the same grounds, despite forceful observations of the Tribunal. Counsel for the Applicants cited Annexure A-2 as proof of medical decategorization of A-1. He Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 20 OA.No.2182/2024 insists that it is a case of partial medical decategorization and there is a judicial finding to that effect in Para 13 of the order in OA No. 611/2021. According to him, in the contempt proceedings, the charge of wilful omission was examined, but the closure of contempt case did not rule out left over grievances. Further, the orders of this Tribunal in OA.No.664/2019 and OA.No.611/2021 have attained finality, as they have not been challenged by the department in a higher Court.

8. Learned counsel for the Applicants reiterates that, although C.P. No. 53/2023, in O.A. No. 611/2021, was closed, the cause of action remains, as per the order, dated 11.09.1996, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar & Ors. The fact that nine similarly situated persons have already been accommodated under the CGA, has also not been disputed. He has contended that, if similarly placed people can get compassionate appointment, denial of compassionate appointment to the Applicant, shows discrimination.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents states that the allegation of non-compliance has already been considered and rejected at the time of closing of CP No. 53/82023 in OA.No.611/2021, stating that the order of this Tribunal has been fully complied with and nothing survives for adjudication in the matter. Citing Para 9 of the order in OA.No.611/2021, learned counsel for the Respondents contends that, once Voluntary Retirement is accepted without any conditions, request for compassionate appointment cannot be considered, subsequently. As per Para 11 of the same order, the Applicant sought voluntary retirement, but he was not medically decategorized. Though he was allowed change of duties, he opted for voluntary retirement. He refers to Annexure A-2, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 21 OA.No.2182/2024 i.e., medical certificate, dated 31.07.2014, suggesting alternative employment on medical grounds, in certain types of jobs. The Applicant never joined a supernumerary post and was assigned only stationary duties till the date of his voluntary retirement.

10.Respondents have submitted that, in obedience to the Tribunal's directions, the applicant's representation, dt.24.01.2023, was duly considered and a reasoned order was passed by the Respondents. The same was communicated, vide letter, dt.10.04.2023. The Railway Board, which is the competent authority for making rules in respect of Group "C" and Group "D" Railway Servants under their control, in terms of Rule 123 of the IREC, Volume-I, has already considered the matter of employment on compassionate grounds in cases of employees who are unfit for train passing duties, but fit for sedentary duties in the same medical classification, as clarified to the Western Railway, under Lr.No.E(NG)II/2006/WR/2, dt.02.10/11.2006. Keeping in view the above instructions of the Railway Board, the case of the Applicant was examined by the PCPO and it was clarified that, where an employee has been medically made fit in the same medical category with recommendations for change of duties, he should not be treated as medically decategorised and appointment on compassionate grounds to wife/ward is not permitted in such cases. It is further submitted that, even before the disposal of the representation, dt.24.01.2023, by the Respondents, once again clarification was sought from the Principal Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO) office about the validity of the Railway Board instructions, issued under Lr.No.E(NG)II/2006/WR/2, dt.02.11.2006, circulated to the Sr.DPO/Guntakal, on 15.03.2019. In response to the above, the PCPO Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 22 OA.No.2182/2024 office further clarified that the instructions are still in vogue and no modified instructions were received from the Railway Board.

11.It is to be noted that the Tribunal had disposed of OA.No.611/2021 on 10.01.2023, with directions to the Respondents to re-consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment, as per rules and scheme. Aggrieved by the disposal of the representation, dt.24.01.2023, Applicants filed CP.No.53 of 2023 in OA.No.611/2021. The CP was closed by the Tribunal in view of their compliance with the directions, dt.10.01.2023. It is to be noted that, while passing order in the CP, liberty was granted to the Applicants to pursue their leftover grievances, if any, by availing appropriate remedies, before the appropriate court.

12.The present case is unique, as this Tribunal has given its verdict twice on the eligibility of the son of Sri.G.S.Krishna (Applicant No.1) for appointment on compassionate grounds. Despite the orders, Respondents have rejected his case again and again. Contempt Petitions filed in both the instances, by the Applicant, have also been closed, giving liberty to the applicants to agitate the left over grievances, if any.

13.It is noticed that the 1st Applicant had sought Voluntary Retirement, on 15.02.2016, along with compassionate appointment for his son (2nd Applicant), upon his medical decategorisation. He followed it up with reminders on 12.05.2016 and 01.11.2016. The said applications are enclosed as Ann.A-3, in a bunch, to the OA. In all the three applications, he has stated that he was medically decategorised in the post of Loco Pilot from Aye-One (A-I) category, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 23 OA.No.2182/2024 vide medical certificate, dt.08.07.2014, because of heart problem. However, we are unable to find any medical certificate, dt.08.07.2014, along with the OA. The only medical certificate, which has been made the basis for arguments as well as findings in the earlier two OAs, is of 31.07.2014, which deals with his categorisation as being unfit for the duties of his original post of Loco Pilot, but, actually, shows him to be fit for the job not involving train running, train passing duties in the same Aye-One category as well as Below, with NV glasses. In the same medical certificate, he was shown to be a case of CAD-SVD. PTCA+S done to LAD. The observations of the Sr.D.M.O. come below the subject -

Sub:- Alternative Employment on Medical Grounds.

14.In all the three letters of Applicant No.1, identical submissions have been made, which read as follows:

"I heared (sic) that approval has come from the CPO/SC for giving job for the Son's (of) Daughters of the medically de-categorized railway employees under C.G. grounds, so please Sir I humbly request you people to consider my case and do favour by retiring me from service Voluntarily Retirement duly treating it as notice with less than 3 months. And please offer the job to my son."

Name or qualifications of his son are not mentioned. Finally, with reference to the letter, dt.01.11.2016, of A-1, acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement is communicated, vide letter, dt.02.12.2018, but, there is no mention in it of his request for appointment to his son. Subsequently, vide letter, dt.20.03.2018, the 3rd Respondent sought the medical invalidation certificate in respect of A-1 along with Memorandum of Acceptance of VR on medical grounds as well as other particulars of his son, S.Ramesh (Applicant No.2).

Application, dt.09.03.2018, of the applicant for CGA is enclosed as Ann.R-4, with the reply statement of the Respondents. Though the Respondents had not held out any assurance of job to his son in the order allowing VR to Applicant Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 24 OA.No.2182/2024 No.1, they have stated in the VR acceptance letter that 'reasons adduced by the Applicant were considered as good and sufficient for his voluntary retirement'. Thus, the ground of medical decategorisation was accepted by the respondents.

15.The impugned rejection letter, dt.10.04.2023, has ignored the detailed findings of the Tribunal, in the previous two OAs, which had examined the earlier rejection letters, dt.25.03.2019 and 11.02.2021, in respect of Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA, in short) to the son of Applicant No.1. It is a repetition of the stand taken by the Respondents regarding eligibility of the 1st Applicant's ward/dependent, as can be seen from the following observations in the letter, dt.10.04.2023 -

"2.In compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal stated supra, your representation dated 24.01.2023, your case has been re-considered by the Competent Authority for compassionate appointment to your Son is examined in detailed and advise the following:

x x x x x

(vi) On submission of the documentation it was examined as per the instructions of the Railway Board No.E(NG)II/2006/WR/2 dated 02.11.2006 and as per the clarification of PCPO.SCR/SC letter P® 8/IV dated 15.03.2019 and advised that appointment on Compassionate Grounds is considered only in case where on employee has been medically de-categorised/incapacitated. In your case you were made fit in the same medical category in Aye-One (A-1) & Below with NV glasses with recommendations in change of duties i.e., job not involving train running/passing duties. In such cases CG appointment cannot be considered.

(vii) As per the instructions in the Railway Board letter No.E(NG)II/95/RC-1/94 dated 14.06.2006, compassionate grounds appointment to the wife/wards/dependent of partially medically decategorised staff (fit in lower medical classification) who seek voluntary retirement can be considered in Group-D categories (erstwhile), when they have at least 05 years or more service left and these instructions are not fulfilling in your case.

(xvi) As such your request for appointment to your Son on compassionate grounds could not be considered. The same have been specified in Railway Board instructions vide letter No.E(NG)II/2006/WR/2 dated 02.11.2006 and the letter No.P(R8)/IV dated 15.03.2019.

x x x x x Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 25 OA.No.2182/2024

11. However, in obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 10.01.2023, being a policy matter, your case referred to PCPO/O/SC on re-

consideration for appointment to your Son on medical de-categorisation, if any prevailing rules and scheme to examine the same. But HQs office has replied vide letter No.P[R]/8/IV dated 31.03.2023 that, the instructions communicated vide this office letter of even No. dt15.03.2019 are still in vogue and no modified instructions have been received from Railway Board. And also a copy of clarification given by Railway Board vide their letter No.E(NG)II/2006/WR/2 dated 02.11.2006 in an identical situation to Western Railway is also enclosed for information."

16.Respondents have continued to harp on the PCPO/SCR/SC letter, dt.15.03.2019, to declare that the Applicant could not apply for CGA for his son as he was not medically decategorised. Very detailed orders on this point have been passed by this Tribunal, on 31.12.2020, in OA.No.664/2019, settling the issue in favour of the applicants, as given below:

"7. I. Applicant was medically found unfit to work as Loco Pilot, but found in A-1 category on 31.7.2014 with NV glasses as admitted by the respondents. In other words, the 1st Applicant was having the adequate vision with the aid of glasses, but did not possess the physical parameters to work as Loco Pilot. Therefore, it has to be construed that he has been partially de-categorised. It is an undeniable fact that the 1st Applicant because of the disability he suffered could not do his original job of Loco Pilot. Consequently, respondents accommodated the Applicant against a supernumerary post till he went on VR on 10.2.2018. In respect of partially de-categorised employees, para 4 of the Railway Board letter dated 14.6.2006 states as under:

"4. Pursuant to the demand raised by staff side the issue has been deliberated upon at length in the full Board Meeting and it has been decided that compassionate ground appointment to the wife/ wards/ dependents of partially medically de-categorised staff who seeks voluntary retirement may be given subject to the following provisions:

(a) The appointment will be given only in the eligible Group D categories. "Eligible" would mean that in case Group "D"

recruitment is banned for any particular category, the same would also apply for the compassionate ground appointments.

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 26 OA.No.2182/2024

(b) Such an appointment should only be given in case of employees who are declared partially decategorised a time when they have at least 5 years or more service left.

(c) CMD of the Railways should keep a watch over the trend of de categorisation so that the present figure do not get inflated.

CMD should also get 10% partially de-categorised cases re- examined by another Medical Board not belonging to Divisional Hospital which initially declared them unfit."

1st Applicant had more than 5 years of service left to retire as is required to seek compassionate appointment to his ward. Therefore, based on the above order of the Railway Board, the 2nd Applicant is entitled for compassionate appointment. The 3rd respondent has relied only on para 2 of the cited letter and ignored the para 4 relevant to the Applicant.

II. The same issue and in particular para 4 cited supra, fell for consideration by the Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench in OA 16/12 which was allowed on 21.3.2013 and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No. 2424 of 2013 (Z). The observation of the Hon'ble High Court are reproduced here under:

"2. The employee was de-categorised to B1 level by visual standards and therefore, found unfit to work as Trackman by physical standard. He was noted to be fit only to do sedentary jobs. Accordingly, he was parked as against a supernumerary post for the last about eight years. On the strength of Railway Board‟s letter dated 14/6/2006, the applicability of which is not in dispute, the Applicant sought intervention of the Tribunal to permit him to go on voluntary retirement and get his ward into service on compassionate grounds.

3. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the clear terms of the letter of the Railway Board, which is Annexure - A4 to Ext. P1 original application filed before the Tribunal, we see that there is no illegality or jurisdictional infirmity in the Tribunal having concluded that the employee who was partially medically de- categorised is eligible to voluntary retirement and for compassionate appointment of his dependent ward in terms of the directions in the said letter of the Railway Board. The clear terms of paragraph 4 of that letter are to the aid of the employee before us and the Tribunal was fully justified in passing the impugned order. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the establishment.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed." Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 27 OA.No.2182/2024 Thus, the case on hand being an identical one, the issue has attained finality as the respondents have not produced any challenge to the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court and the outcome thereof.

x x x x III. ....The 1 Applicant sought voluntary retirement way back on st 15.2.2016 and reiterated the request on 1.11.2016 with a view to get his ward appointed on compassionate grounds. However, after 2 years, the request for VR was considered on 10.2.2018 and not the compassionate appointment. Respondents collected the requisite documents for processing the compassionate appointment too. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent relying on para 2 of letter dated 14.6.2006 rejected the request, without considering para 4 of the same letter. The Tribunal does not agree with the contention of the Applicants that the 3rd respondent is not competent to decide the issue. He did not decide the issue, but only relied on the Railway Board circular to reject the request. However, it is not explained as to why the respondents did not intimate the 1st Applicant before his retirement that his ward would not be eligible for compassionate appointment if he were to be medically de-categorised in the same category. If the same was intimated earlier to the retirement of the 1st Applicant, perhaps, he would not have gone on VR. The Tribunal is of the view that the respondents have made the mistake in not informing the 1st Applicant when he represented on several occasions and for their mistake, the 1st Applicant should not suffer as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

(i) In Union of India vs. Sadhana Khanna, C.A. No. 8208/01, decided on 14.12.2007, it was held that the mistake of the department employees.

(ii) In cannot recoiled on yet another recent case of M.V. Thimmaiah vs. UPSC, C.A. No. 5883-5991 of 2007 decided on 13.12.2007, it has been observed that if there is a failure on the part of the officers to discharge their duties the incumbent should not be allowed to suffer.

(iii) In Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 363 the Apex Court has held "The mistake or delay on the part of the department should not be permitted to recoil on the appellants."

In the context of the above observations, respondents need to reconsider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment. Respondents did assert that the employee cannot seek compassionate appointment for his ward as a matter of right. The Tribunal, while agreeing with the respondents on this count, in the same vein, it must be stated that the right of the 2nd Applicant to be considered for compassionate appointment cannot be denied. The Railway Board letter dated 8.7.2014 Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 28 OA.No.2182/2024 provides the basis for considering compassionate appointment and it is in the spirit of this letter that the case on hand has to be processed. Respondents relied on circulars of the 1990s, which have mostly been superseded.

VII. In view of the above, the OA fully succeeds both from the perspective of rules and law. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment to the grade he is eligible as per rules and law, within a period of 3 months from the date receipt of this order.

VIII. With the above direction the OA is allowed. No order as to costs."

(emphasis supplied)

17.Noticing similar grounds taken by the Respondents, in the rejection order, dt.11.02.2021, this Tribunal has again given detailed orders on 10.01.2023 in OA.No.611/2021 as follows:

11. Both parties have filed their respective pleadings. On the directions of this Tribunal dated 24.08.2022, the respondents filed additional reply statement stating that the 1st Applicant was medically examined and found unfit for the duties of his original post of Loco Pilot, but was found fit for the job not involving training running and train passing duties in A-I & below with NV glasses. The respondents mainly rely on the letter issued by the PCPO/SC dated 15.03.2019 to assert that the 1st Applicant should not be treated as medically de-categorized as he has been made fit with NV glasses in the same medical category with recommendation of change of duties, and therefore, grant of compassionate appointment to his ward is not permitted.

12. I have perused the said clarification dt. 15.03.2019 and the concluding paras of the same are extracted hereunder:

"Clarifications are being sought as to whether appointment on CG can be considered in respect of employees who were declared fit in the same medical classification with recommendation of change of duties.

The matter has been examined and it is advised that wherein an employee has been made fit in the same medical category with recommendations of change duties should not be treated as medically de-categorised and appointment on CG to wife/ ward is not permitted in such cases."

The very same letter of PCPO/SC dt. 15.03.2019 was subject matter of the earlier OA 664/2019 and having considered all the material on record and the respective contentions, this Tribunal allowed the said OA while observing that the 2nd Applicant is entitled to be considered Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 29 OA.No.2182/2024 for compassionate appointment. Thus, it was clearly held that the OA fully succeeded and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment to the grade he is eligible. Despite the same, the respondents rejected the case of the Applicants citing the very same clarification dt. 15.03.2019 once again, which is not permissible under law. As per the record, the order in the earlier OA No.644/2019 has attained finality. Therefore, respondents cannot once again cite the same letter for negating the relief to the Applicant.

13. As seen from the Indian Railway Medical Manual, the medical standards prescribed for A1 category, which are required for the post of Loco Pilot are as follows:

A-1: Physically fit in all respects.

Visual Standards - Distant Vision: 6/6, 6/6 without glasses.

Near Vision: Sn: 0.6, 0.6 without glasses.

First of all, it is un-understandable as to how the 1st Applicant was made fit in A-1 & below medical category with NV glasses, when the medical standards prescribed for A-1 category is without glasses. Further, as observed by this Tribunal in the earlier OA, though the 1st Applicant was found unfit to work as Loco Pilot for which medical standard of A-1 category without glasses is prescribed, he was found fit in A-1 category with NV Glasses, which means, he was not having the required vision without glasses and as he could not do his original job of Loco Pilot due to his disability, he has to be treated as partially medically de-categorised. Admittedly, wards of partially medically de- categorised Railway employees, who seek voluntary retirement, can be considered for compassionate appointment as per the Railway Board letter RBE No.78/2006 dt. 14.06.2006. The 1st Applicant also contended that, but for the scheme envisaged under RBE 78/2006, he would not have opted to retire voluntarily and would have continued till his superannuation i.e. 30.06.2023. This aspect was also adjudicated by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA 16 of 2012 vide order dt. 21.03.2013 by allowing the OA and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No. 2424 of 2023 (Z). The said order has attained finality as recorded in the earlier OA 664 of 2019 and the case of the Applicants is said to be identical to the said case.

Once an order of the Tribunal has attained finality, the respondents are bound by the observations/ directions contained therein. Law is well- settled that, order of the Court or Tribunal, has to be implemented until it is stayed by the superior judicial fora, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments.

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 30 OA.No.2182/2024 a. The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs C. Muddaiah on 7 September, 2007 in Appeal (civil) 4108 of 2007

31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected.

b. Director of Education, Uttaranchal & Ors v. Ved Prakash Joshi,(2005) 6 SCC 98 :: AIR 2005 SC 3200 The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order..... Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt.

(Emphasis supplied).

c. Referring to the above case, the Apex Court has stated in its judgment in Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami, (2008) 5 SCC 339 as under:

22. While exercising the said jurisdiction this court does not intend to reopen the issues which could have been raised in the original proceeding nor shall it embark upon other questions including the plea of equities which could fall for consideration only in the original proceedings. The court is not concerned with as to whether the original order was right or wrong. The court must not take a different view or traverse beyond the same. It cannot ordinarily give an additional direction or delete a direction issued. In short, it will not do anything which would amount to exercise of its review jurisdiction.

14. Further, Para 1302 of IREM, Vol. I, amended under Advance Correction Slip No. 77 and circulated vide Railway Board letter RBE No. 89/99 dt.29.04.1999 (Annexure R-2) reads as under: Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 31 OA.No.2182/2024 "1302. Classification of Railway Servants declared medically unfit - Railway servants acquiring disability during service and declared medically unfit are divisible into two groups: --

i. Those completely disabled for further service in any post in the Railway, i.e. those who cannot be declared fit even in the 'C' medical category; and ii. Those disabled/incapacitated for further service in the post they are holding but declared fit in a lower medical category and eligible for retention in service in posts corresponding to this lower medical category.

As seen from said para 1302 of IREM, Railway servants declared medically unfit can be classified into two categories viz., those who completely disabled for further service in any post in Railway and those disabled/ incapacitated for further service in the post they are holding, but declared fit in a lower medical category and eligible for retention in service with lower medical standards. Whereas, in the instant case, the 1st Applicant was found unfit in A-1 category to work as Loco Pilot, but he was made fit in A-1 & below category with NV Glasses for non- running duties, which does not fit into any of the classifications, envisaged under IREM Para 1302. Under clause (ii) of para 1302 supra, if one is incapacitated/ disabled to continue in the post held by him, it has to be seen whether he can be declared fit in the lower medical category and eligible for retention in service. Thus, there are only two classifications envisaged when a Railway employee is medically de- categorised. Whereas, the respondents have declared the 1st Applicant fit in the very same medical category i.e. A-1 with NV Glasses, which is not the purport of the said provision. As the 1st Applicant was found unfit for the post of Loco Pilot post with A1 medical standards, he could have been declared to be fit in the next below medical category as per IREM Para 1302, instead of making him fit in the same A1 category with NV Glasses. Even the visual standards for the next below medical category i.e. A-2 is also without glasses. On perusal of the PCPO/SC dt. 15.03.2019, it does not show the power or authority under which the PCPO/SC can issue such clarification contrary to the IREM Para 1302 issued by the Railway Board. The clarification only refers to the Railway Board letters dt. 18.01.2000 and 14.06.2006 for grant of compassionate appointment to the eligible ward of the employee upon his voluntary retirement in two situations viz., (i) when the employee is totally incapacitated and cannot continue in any post and (ii) when employee is partially medically de-categorized (fit in a lower medical classification) respectively. Having referred to the said letters of the Railway Board, the PCPO/SC issued the letter dt. 15.03.2019, which is the main plank for the respondents to reject the case of the 2nd Applicant for being considered for compassionate appointment.

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 32 OA.No.2182/2024 Therefore, there is justification in the contention of the Applicant that the clarification letter of the PCPO/SC dt. 15.03.2019 is contrary to the IREM Para 1302.

15. According to the Applicant, nine similar persons were granted compassionate appointment and he also given the names of the those persons in his representation dt. 25.05.2019 and there is no denial of the same by the respondents. Still, the Applicant has been discriminated and the same was also recorded by this Tribunal. When compassionate appointments were granted in similar cases, the respondents cannot deny the same, which amounts to discrimination. This Tribunal is also conscious that compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of right, but the claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered in right perspective as per the prevailing scheme and rules.

It is a fit case for being re-considered for compassionate appointment as per the prevailing rules and scheme at the relevant point of time, dehors the letter of the PCPO/SC dt. 15.03.2019. The impugned order dt. 11.02.2021 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

16. In view of the above, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for compassionate appointment as per rules and scheme, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

(emphasis supplied)

18.On disposal of OA.No.611/2021, the impugned order, dt.10.04.2023 was passed.

The action of the Respondents in rejecting the case of the applicants was again questioned in CP.No.53/2023, filed in OA.No.611/2021. Considering that the Respondents had complied with the directions of the Tribunal, to reconsider the case, the CP was closed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his leftover grievances. The OA having come up for consideration, it is found that, as discussed by the Tribunal in the earlier two OAs, rejection is once again based on letter, dt.15.03.2019, carrying the clarification, dt.02.11.2006, contrary to the specific order of this Tribunal in OA.No.611/2021 (supra) to reconsider the case for CGA "dehors the letter of the PCPO/SC, dt.15.03.2019", as it was contrary to IREM, Para 1302.

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 33 OA.No.2182/2024

19.When there is no order of any superior Court setting aside the findings of the Tribunal, which draws strength from the decision by the Co-ordinate Bench in Ernakulam in OA.No.16/2012, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No.2424 of 2023, it is obvious that the impugned rejection order in this OA is a mere perfunctory exercise to claim that orders of this Tribunal have been complied with. In reality, by ignoring the basic findings as well as direction of the Tribunal, Respondents have failed to reconsider the case of the Applicants in the true spirit. This Tribunal cannot be expected to review its earlier findings that the ward of the 1st Applicant is entitled to be considered under Para-4 of the Railway Board letter (RBE No.78 of 2006), dt.14.06.2006, as well as Rule 1302(ii) of the IREM quoted above. This Bench has taken much pains to explain the reasons for declaring A-1 as partially decategorised in its earlier orders, wherefrom extracts have been reproduced above. It is also pertinent that the Applicant had more than 5 years of service left when he sought VR. He kept requesting for compassionate ground appointment for his son, right from his first application for Voluntary Retirement, invoking the provisions of RBE No.78/2006. While accepting his VR request, w.e.f.

10.02.2018, it is mentioned by the Respondents, in their order, dt.02.02.2018, that his application for VR "on medical grounds due to medical decategorisation" was considered as "the reasons adduced by the above said employee is considered as good and sufficient". There was no indication in the said order that his case was not being considered for CGA appointment to his son, otherwise between the first application, dt.15.02.2016, for VR, till the issue of order, dt.02.02.2018, accepting his application, dt.01.11.2016, for VR, there was enough time for the 1st Applicant to reconsider his decision to proceed on Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 34 OA.No.2182/2024 VR on medical grounds at the cost of CG appointment for his son, despite foregoing his full salary and other allowances from the date of proceeding on VR.

20.Learned counsel for the Respondents has argued that the Tribunal has accepted the compliance of its orders by the Respondents and closed the Contempt Petition Nos.48/2021 & 53/2023. It must be pointed out that rejection of the applications was not equated with wilful disobedience. However, it is clear that substantive orders of the Tribunal have not been carried out by the Respondents, despite explicit findings given in both the OAs.

21.Thus, the concerned authorities are strictly directed not to ignore the findings as well as clear directions of the Tribunal by harping on the points which have already been decided, as Respondents are not competent and empowered to do so. They must consider the case for CGA to Applicant No.2, considering his eligibility in terms of the details submitted by the Applicant, vide his application, dt.09.03.2018, which was processed and a report was also submitted by the Welfare Inspector, Guntakal, on 12.03.2018, whereupon directions were issued to produce the documents on 20.03.2018. Thereafter, the case got caught in the controversy in respect of medical decategorisation. However, this issue has been categorically settled by this Tribunal, again and again, and, as directed by the Tribunal, is not to be raked up for denying consideration of Applicant No.2 for CGA on this ground. As seen from the orders of this Tribunal r/w order, dt.21.03.2013, of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal passed in OA.No.16/2012, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No.2424 of 2023, the matter is no longer res integra. Once the issue is settled by judicial orders of competent Courts/Tribunals, Respondents are barred Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 35 OA.No.2182/2024 from raking it up under the principles of resjudicata. The following portions of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daryao & Ors (supra) are extracted below -

"It is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by Courts' of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. If these two principles form the foundation of the general rule of res judicata they cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible ....

"In considering the essential elements of res judicata one inevitably harks back to the judgment of Sir William de Grey, (afterwards Lord Walsingham) in the leading Duchess of Kingston's case (1). Said Sir William de Grey, (afterwards Lord Walsingham) "from the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil suits, these two deductions seem to follow as generally true: First, that the judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another court; Secondly, that the judgment of a court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is in like manner conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another court for a different purpose". As has been observed by Halsbury, "the doctrine of res judicata is not a technical doctrine applicable only to records; it is a fundamental doctrine of all courts that there must be an end of litigation ....

"The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of the rule of law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on which the Constitution lays so much emphasis ....

"Thus, on general considerations of public policy there seems to be no reason why the rule of res judicata should be treated as inadmissible or irrelevant in dealing with petitions filed under Art,. 32 of the Constitution. It is true that the general rule can be invoked only in cases where a dispute between the parties has been referred to a court of competent jurisdiction, there has been a contest between the parties before the court, a fair opportunity has been given to both of them to prove their case, and at the end the court has pronounced its judgment or decision. Such a decision pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction is binding between the parties unless it is modified or reversed by adopting a procedure prescribed by the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 36 OA.No.2182/2024 Constitution. In our opinion, therefore, the plea that the general rule of res judicata should not be allowed to be invoked cannot be sustained."

22.In view of the above, the impugned order, dt.10.04.2023, is quashed and set aside.

Respondents are directed to consider the case of Applicant No.2, for compassionate ground appointment, as directed above, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as per the applicable rules and law, without questioning the eligibility under medical decategorisation, as discussed in the earlier orders of CAT and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP(CAT) No.2424 of 2023, supra.

23.The OA is allowed, in the above terms. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) Administrative Member 08.04.2026 /ps/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLAP DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O= CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=Telangana, E= [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4181 ALLI 3a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a 510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad

Gs Krishna vs South Central Railway on 8 April, 2026