Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dasrath Kumar vs General Manager, N E Rly on 20 May, 2026
Reserved on 18.05.2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
th
Dated : This the 20 day of MAY 2026
Original Application No. 655/2018
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Dasrath Kumar aged about 37 years s/o Late Smt. Shyamkali Devi urf
Shyamkali (ex Substitute Safaiwali working under Station
Superintendent / N. E. Railway, Jangiganj Station) r/o House No. D
55/51, Lahartara Pool, P.O. Cantt. District - Varanasi U.P. Pin Code
-221002
...Applicant.
By Adv : Shri Shiv Kumar
:Shri Manoj Kumar Dhrubvanshi
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur
2. General Manager North Eastern Railway, Headquarter office,
Gorakhpur
3. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.
4. Divisional Personnel Officer / Sr. DPO, North Eastern Railway,
DRM's Office, Varanasi
5. Chairman, Ministry of Railway (Railway Board), Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi.
...Respondents.
By Adv: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
ASHISH
KUMAR
1
ORDER
Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, for seeking following relief(s):-
I. The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 7.2.2018 passed by DPO / N.E.Railway, Varanasi along with General Manager (P) / N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur's order dated 11.1.2018 ( Annexure A-1) and also DPO/ N.E.Railway, Varanasi' letter dated 23.4.2018 (Annexure A2) and further issue a direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the applicant for compassionate ground appointment on top priority as per provisions contained in Master Circular No. 16 issued by the Ministry of Railways II. The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to issue direction to the respondents to give all consequential benefits admissible under the Rules which have arisen on account of death of Smt. Shyamkali Devi, Substitute Safaiwali / Jangiganj who was run over and killed on duty in accident on 5.10.2015 as admissible in the rules.
III. Any other it or order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice.
IV. Cost of the application may also be awarded.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the mother of the applicant, namely Smt. Shyam Kali Devi, was initially appointed as Substitute Safaiwali in the Commercial Department of North Eastern Railway, Varanasi Division on 18.02.1988 and continuously worked at various stations till 31.05.1997. Her name was approved as on-roll substitute by the competent authority and she was subsequently granted temporary status with retrospective effect vide Office Order dated 31.03.2005. Thereafter, she was called for screening held in October, 2011, but was declared unfit on the ground of overage without granting the benefit of age relaxation admissible to on-roll substitutes, and consequently her services were terminated vide Office Order dated 26.03.2012. The said termination order was set aside by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1182/2012 (Shivmuni & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) vide judgment ASHISH KUMAR 2 dated 25.09.2014, against which the respondents preferred Writ Petition No. 7159/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein only regularization was stayed. In compliance of the Tribunal's order, Smt. Shyam Kali Devi was reinstated vide Office Order dated 15.04.2015 and posted under SS/Jangiganj. Unfortunately, while discharging her duties, she died on 05.10.2015 and thereafter the applicant's father also expired on 03.04.2017. The applicant thereafter sought appointment on compassionate grounds, but despite representations made to the Chairman, Railway Board and General Manager, N.E. Railway, the respondents kept the matter pending and no final decision has been taken till date.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inspector General on Registration U.P. and another vs Avdesh Kumar and others [1996 SCC (L&s) 1222] in which it has been held that persons appointed on daily wages and getting age-barred by the date of selection for regular appointment and direction was issued to give relaxation of the age limit at the time of regularization along with all eligible candidates and if they are selected on merit according to the rules, they would be appointed.
5. Per contra, in the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the mother of the applicant was granted temporary status vide order dated 31.03.2005 w.e.f. 04.08.2004 only on the basis of rendering 120 days continuous service from 06.04.2004 to 03.08.2004. It has further been contended that from 18.02.1988 to 31.05.1997 she had merely worked as a part-time Safaiwali in Hastshilp Kala Kendra, Varanasi and the employees working therein were not treated as Railway employees as their wages were paid from the welfare fund. The respondents further submitted that though the applicant's mother appeared in the screening test held in October, 2011 for regularization, she was declared ineligible on the ground of overage and consequently duty was stopped vide order dated 26.03.2012. It has also been averred that there was no approval of the General Manager regarding relaxation in age or educational qualification. The respondents admitted that the termination order dated 26.03.2012 was set aside by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1182/2012 and the employees including the applicant's mother were ASHISH KUMAR 3 reinstated in compliance thereof, however, against the said judgment the respondents preferred Writ Petition No. 7159/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein interim stay was granted regarding consideration of regularization by overlooking age and educational qualification. According to the respondents, since the writ petition is still pending and the status of the applicant's mother as substitute Safaiwali is subject to final outcome of the writ petition, the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment has rightly been kept in abeyance and no benefit can presently be extended to him.
6. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has denied the stand taken by the respondents and reiterated that his mother, Late Smt. Shyam Kali Devi, was never a part-time worker but was appointed as Substitute Safaiwali in the Commercial Department of N.E. Railway, Varanasi Division on 18.02.1988 and continuously worked at various stations. It has been specifically asserted that her appointment and continuation as "on-roll substitute" was approved by the General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur with relaxation in age and educational qualification and her name appeared in the approved list of substitutes. The applicant further submitted that temporary status ought to have been granted much earlier in 1988 itself, though it was granted retrospectively only from 04.08.2004 vide order dated 31.03.2005. It is further stated that the Screening Committee illegally declared her overage in the screening test held in October, 2011 by ignoring the provisions of Master Circular No. 20 which provided automatic age relaxation to substitutes appointed within the prescribed age limit, and consequently her termination dated 26.03.2012 was arbitrary and contrary to law. It has also been pointed out that this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1182/2012 quashed the termination order and she was reinstated in service vide order dated 15.04.2015. The applicant further contended that though the respondents had filed Writ Petition No. 7159/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court, the same stood dismissed in default on 05.10.2018 and no interim order survived thereafter. It has also been emphasized that at the time of her death in a train accident while on duty on 05.10.2015, she was working as Substitute Safaiwali and drawing salary in the regular pay scale, ASHISH KUMAR 4 therefore the applicant became entitled for compassionate appointment under the Railway Board's policy circulars.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. Here it is relevant to reproduce the operating portion of the order of this Tribunal passed in OA. 1182/2012, which is as under:-
11.Given the facts as mentioned herein above, the O.A is allowed and impugned order dated 26.3.2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants in service in the capacity of substitute Safaiwala with temporary status without back wages and thereafter give them an opportunity to appear in screening test over looking the age and educational qualification. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In the event the applicants succeed in the screening test and become eligible for regularization, the seniority of those, who have already been absorbed, will not be effected. No costs.
It is also pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 7159/2015 (Substitution Application) , which is as under:-
2. This is an application for substitution to bring on record the legal and natural heirs and representatives of respondent-8, who is said to have died on 5.10.2015. However upon perusal of judgement and order dated 25.9.2014, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), Allahabad Bench, Allahabad we find that the directions issued therein are personal to each applicants before Tribunal i.e. respondents 1 to 8 herein. Consequently, upon death of any of the applicants, the cause of action being personal could not have been succeeded by legal and natural heirs and representatives of deceased applicant. Therefore, present writ petition shall stand abated against such person and is confined to the surviving applicants only.
3. No substitution, therefore, can be allowed since nothing has to be succeeded. Accordingly, above mentioned substitution application is rejected. Writ petition shall stand abated against respondent-8.
4. Since cause of action arising from impugned judgement and order are individual to remaining respondents. Therefore, we proceed to hear this writ petition in respect to respondents 1 to 7.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed his reliance on the Master Circular on Appointment on Compassionate Grounds issued ASHISH KUMAR 5 by Railway Board. The relevant portion of the aforesaid circular is as follows: -
XI. COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS OF THE
WARD/WIDOW OF CASUAL LABOUR:
(a). The General Managers have powers to consider and decide requests for appointment on compassionate grounds of the wards/ widow of a casual labour who dies due to accident while on duty provided the casual labourer concerned is eligible for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Such appointments should be as casual labour (fresh face) or substitute.
(b). Similar consideration may also be shown to a ward/widow of a casual labourer with temporary status at the discretion of the General Manager.
©. This power should be exercised by the General Manager personally and should not be delegated to any authority. This power should be exercised judiciously keeping in view the particular need to contain the total casual labour force.
[No. E(NG)II/84/CL/28 dated 04.05.1984, 31.12.1986 (RBE 256/1986), 13.3.1987 and 6.12.1989] 10 I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the pleadings as well as documents brought on record. From the materials available on record, it is evident that the mother of the applicant, Late Smt. Shyam Kali Devi, was engaged as Substitute Safaiwali in the Commercial Department of N.E. Railway, Varanasi Division on 18.02.1988 and continued to work for a considerable period at various stations. The records further reveal that her name was approved as "on-roll substitute" by the competent authority and she was subsequently granted temporary status vide Office Order dated 31.03.2005. It is also not in dispute that she was permitted to participate in the screening held in October, 2011 for regularization, however, she was declared ineligible on the ground of overage and her services were terminated vide order dated 26.03.2012. The said termination order was challenged before this Tribunal in O.A. No.1182/2012 and the same was quashed by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 25.09.2014 with direction to reinstate the applicants therein. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Late Smt. Shyam Kali Devi was reinstated in service vide Office Order dated 15.04.2015 and was ASHISH KUMAR 6 admittedly working as Substitute Safaiwali at the time of her death on 05.10.2015 while performing duty.
11. The principal objection raised by the respondents is that the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment was kept in abeyance due to pendency of Writ Petition No.7159/2015 filed before the Hon'ble High Court against the judgment of this Tribunal. However, from the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that there was no stay order operating against reinstatement of Late Smt. Shyam Kali Devi and, in fact, the respondents themselves reinstated her in service in compliance of the Tribunal's order. Once the respondents treated the deceased employee to be in service and permitted her to discharge duties till her death, they cannot subsequently deny the consequential benefits flowing from such service status to her dependent family members. Moreover, the applicant has specifically brought on record that the aforesaid writ petition itself stood dismissed in default on 05.10.2018 which has been revived later but no specific order was passed in regard to continuance of the stay order granted earlier.
12. The stand taken by the respondents that the deceased employee was merely a part-time worker paid from welfare fund does not inspire confidence in view of the documentary materials showing her approval as on-roll substitute, grant of temporary status and reinstatement pursuant to judicial orders. The respondents have also failed to dispute that at the time of death she was drawing salary in the regular pay scale applicable to Substitute Safaiwalas. It further appears that the Screening Committee had ignored the applicable provisions relating to age relaxation for on-roll substitutes while declaring her overage, which issue had already been considered by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. It is also admitted by respondents that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has only stayed the orders of this Tribunal so far her regularisation is concerned. After dismissal of the Writ Petition in default and subsequent revival without specific order on continuance of interim order and abetment of writ petition in respect of applicant and another goes to establish that there is no legal ground left with respondents to keep the request of applicant pending till final disposal of the writ petition by the Hon'ble High Court.
ASHISH KUMAR 7
13. Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee dying in harness. In the present case, not only did the applicant lose his mother while she was discharging official duties, but subsequently his father also expired, leaving the family in financial hardship. The action of the respondents in indefinitely keeping the claim of the applicant pending on the ground of pendency of writ proceedings, despite reinstating the deceased employee and taking work from her till her death, is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the spirit of the Railway Board circulars governing compassionate appointment.
14. Accordingly, the Original Application deserves to be allowed. Hence, OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds treating Late Smt. Shyam Kali Devi to have died in harness while working as Substitute Safaiwali with temporary status, and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with applicable rules and policy circulars within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case the applicant is otherwise found eligible, consequential benefits shall also be extended expeditiously.
(Mohan Pyare) Member (A) Ashish ASHISH KUMAR 8