Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vivek Kumar vs North Central Railway on 10 October, 2025
RESERVED ON 07/10/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 10th of OCTOBER 2025
PRESENT:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 330/00067 of 2023
Vivek Kumar 39 years, S/o late Sri Sunil Kumar, R/o 41/62, Puliya
Ka Nagla, Shiv Nagar, Shahganj, District Agra.
. . . Applicant
By Adv: Shri Sunil/Shri Munesh Kr. Upadhyay
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager (Establishment),
North Central Railway, Agra.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, (Personnel), North Central
Railway, Agra.
3. Senior Divisional Engineer/Power, in the office of the
Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), North Central Railway,
Agra.
. . .Respondents
By Adv: Ms. Shikha Dixit
ORDER
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 2 of 11 The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel) North Central Railway, Agra.
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the applicant with regard to compassionate appointment, in place of his deceased father late Sunil Kumar, served as Helper, in the office of the respondent No.3.
(iii) That any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award the cost of the application".
2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that his father was working as a Helper under the respondent department. On 05.04.2011, the applicant's father attended his duties in the office but did not return home thereafter. Despite continuous efforts made by the family members to trace him, no clue could be found. After the lapse of about six months, the family members, having lost all hope, presumed him to be missing. Consequently, the applicant's sister lodged a missing report dated 09.09.2011 before the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, District Agra, which was duly registered on the same date. It is further stated that despite thorough investigation, the whereabouts of the applicant's father could not be traced, and the Investigating Officer submitted his report dated 25.11.2018. A copy of the relevant General Diary entry has also been placed on record. The applicant has further submitted that his mother had already expired earlier, and his father was the sole earning member of the family. After his father was reported MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 3 of 11 missing, the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in lieu of his deceased/missing father. However, vide letter dated 04.12.2018, respondent No. 2 directed the applicant to appear before him along with requisite documents. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, rejected the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment by order dated 21.07.2022. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present Original Application seeking appropriate relief.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed a counter affidavit stating that the applicant's father, late Shri Sunil Kumar, was working as Helper under SSE/Vidyut/Power/Agra Cantonment. It has been submitted that a missing complaint regarding Shri Sunil Kumar was lodged by his daughter, Ms. Priyanka Sain, on 09.09.2011 at Police Station Sadar, Agra. As per the report of the said police station dated 25.11.2018, Shri Sunil Kumar has been missing since 05.04.2011. The respondents have further stated that, as per the Railway Board's letter RBE No. 164/98 dated 26.07.1998, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be extended to the dependents of a missing employee who had less than two years of service left before the date of superannuation. In the present case, as per the service records, the date of birth of the missing employee Shri Sunil Kumar is 17.01.1953, and his date of retirement was due on 31.01.2013. Accordingly, at the time of his disappearance, his remaining service tenure was approximately one year and four months, i.e., less than MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 4 of 11 two years. In view of the aforesaid instructions, it has been submitted that no dependent of the said missing employee is entitled to compassionate appointment. It has, however, been clarified that family pension has been sanctioned and is being paid to the dependent of the missing employee in accordance with the applicable rules. Presently, the unmarried daughter of the missing employee, Ms. Shikha Sain, is receiving family pension vide Pension Payment Order No. 20117320400032. Hence, it has been contended by the respondents that the rejection of the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment is in strict conformity with the Railway Board's instructions and no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the impugned order.
4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant in which the applicant has reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit. Nothing new has been asserted in the rejoinder affidavit.
5 I have heard Shri Sunil, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Shikha Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, mechanical, and contrary to the settled principles of law governing compassionate appointments. It has been argued that the applicant's father, late Shri Sunil Kumar, who was serving as MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 5 of 11 Helper under the respondent department, went missing on 05.04.2011 after attending his duties. A missing report was duly lodged on 09.09.2011 at Police Station Sadar, Agra, and after due investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted his final report dated 25.11.2018 confirming that the employee could not be traced. Hence, the case squarely falls within the ambit of a "missing Government servant" as recognized under the relevant government instructions and judicial pronouncements. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the compassionate appointment scheme is a beneficial and welfare-oriented measure intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased or missing employee who dies or disappears while in service, leaving the family in penury. The denial of such relief to the applicant, whose father was the sole bread-winner and whose mother had pre-deceased him, defeats the very object of the scheme. It is further argued that the respondents have misused the provisions of Railway Board's letter RBE No. 164/98 dated 26.07.1998. The said circular, which bars compassionate appointment in cases where the missing employee had less than two years of service left, cannot be construed in a manner so as to deny relief to a family facing destitution. It is submitted that the instructions are directory and not mandatory in nature, and in peculiar facts such as the present one, the competent authority ought to have exercised its discretion in favour of the dependent to avoid undue hardship. Learned counsel further contended that the order impugned suffers from non- application of mind and absence of reasoned consideration. The MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 6 of 11 respondents merely reproduced the contents of the Railway Board's circular without examining the special facts of the case, particularly that the family has been deprived of any means of livelihood since 2011 and that the applicant fulfills all other eligibility criteria prescribed for compassionate appointment. It has also been contended that once the competent authority has accepted the status of the employee as "missing" and family pension has been sanctioned to his dependents, the respondents cannot, on the same set of facts, deny compassionate appointment to another dependent member on technical grounds. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 be set aside, and the respondents be directed to reconsider the applicant's case for appointment on compassionate grounds afresh, keeping in view the humanitarian object of the scheme and the financial condition of the family.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant and submitted that the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 has been passed strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions issued by the Railway Board from time to time. It has been contended that the applicant's father, late Shri Sunil Kumar, who was working as Helper under SSE/Vidyut/Power/Agra Cantonment, went missing on 05.04.2011, and a missing report was lodged by his daughter, Ms. Priyanka Sain, on 09.09.2011 at Police Station Sadar, Agra. As per the final report of the Investigating Officer dated 25.11.2018, Shri Sunil Kumar could not be traced and continues to remain missing since MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 7 of 11 the said date. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, as per the Railway Board's circular RBE No. 164/98 dated 26.07.1998, the benefit of compassionate appointment is not admissible to the dependents of a missing employee who had less than two years of service left before the date of superannuation. The said policy decision of the Railway Board is binding upon all and leaves no scope for relaxation or deviation by the subordinate authorities. In the present case, as per the official service records, Shri Sunil Kumar had only about one year and four months of service remaining, which is clearly less than two years. Therefore, in view of the express bar contained in the Railway Board's letter dated 26.07.1998, the applicant is not eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that family pension has already been sanctioned and is being regularly paid to the dependent unmarried daughter, Ms. Shikha Sain, vide Pension Payment Order No. 20117320400032. Thus, adequate financial relief has been extended to the family as per rules. It is next argued that the applicant's claim is devoid of merit and that the Original Application deserves to be dismissed, as the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, procedural irregularity, or perversity warranting interference by this Tribunal.
8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 8 of 11
9. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the applicant's father had been missing since 05.04.2011. A missing report was duly lodged and after investigation, the police submitted the final report. The applicant thereafter applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 21.07.2022 on the ground that, as per the provisions of RBE No. 164/98 dated 26.07.1998, the applicant's father had less than two years of service left from the date he went missing.
10. The stand of the applicant is that since the final police report has been submitted and all formalities required under law have been completed, the respondents ought to have considered his case for compassionate appointment on humanitarian grounds without rejecting it on technical grounds.
11. The respondents, on the other hand, have relied upon RBE No. 164/98 and have upheld that since the missing employee had less than two years of service left before superannuation, the claim for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected. Therefore, the observations recorded in the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal.
12. Before discussing the submissions raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the RBE No. 164/1998:-
"RBE NO. 164/98(Supplementary Circular No. 29 to MC NO. 16).
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 9 of 11 Subject : Compassionate appointment in the case of missing Railway employee.
Attention is invited to the instructions contained in this Ministry's letter NO. E(NG)11/81/RC-1/251 dated 6.3.82, 24.5.82 & 21.12.83 on the above mentioned subject.
2. Department of Personnel & Training, vide their O.M. dated 31.10.97, have laid down certain norms for compassionate appointments in the case of missing Government-servants.
3. The matter has been considered by the Board in the light of the above.
Accordingly in supersession of existing instructions on the subject, it has been decided as under
(i) A request to grant the benefit of compassionate appointment can be considered after a lapse of a least 2 years from the date from which the Railway employee has been missing, provided that an FIR has been lodged and the missing person is not traceable, and the competent authority feels that the case is genuine;
(ii) This benefit will not be applicable to the case of a Railway employee :
(a) Who had less than two years to retire on the date from which he has been missing; or
(b) Who is suspected to have committed fraud, suspected to have joined any terrorist organisation or suspected to have gone abroad.
(iii) Compassionate appointment in the case of a missing Railway employee also. could not be a matter of right and will be subject to fulfilment of all the conditions, including the availability of vacancy, laid down for such appointment under the existing scheme;
(iv) While considering such a request the results of police investigation should also be taken into account;
(v) A decision on any request for compassionate appointment covered by these general instructions should be taken only at the level of the General Manager on the Railways;
(vi) The services of the wards/widows will be terminated in case the missing Railway employee becomes available subsequently;
(vii) The compassionate appointment may be delinked from the payment of settlement dues i.c. compassionate appointment in such cases may not be denied or deferred only on the ground that MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 10 of 11 settlement dues of the missing employee are still to be paid to the persons entitled to receive them.
4. The above will also be applicable to the wards/widows of casual labourers temporary status) who are found missing. The other conditions contained in Board's letter No. E(NG)11/96/RC-1/85 dated 17.10.97 (Bahri's RBO 1997, P. 139), will however Continue to apply in such cases".
13. In the present case, it is clear from the record that the applicant's father was due to retire on 31.01.2013 and had gone missing on 05.04.2011. The period between the said dates is less than two years, which means that the employee had less than two years of service remaining at the time of his disappearance. In terms of paragraph 3(ii) of RBE No. 164/98, the benefit of compassionate appointment is not admissible in cases where the missing employee had less than two years of service. The impugned order has been passed in accordance with the said provision. Nothing has been brought on record by the applicant to show that his father had more than two years of service remaining at the time he went missing. In the absence of such proof, the findings recorded by the respondents in the impugned order cannot be held to be illegal or perverse. The grounds taken in the Original Application are not sufficient to grant the relief sought.
14. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs. All pending MAs also stand disposed of.
(Justice Om Prakash- VII) Member (J) MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 11 of 11 Manish MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA