Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dinesh Chander Juyal vs M/O Railways on 2 February, 2026
1
Item No.62/C-3
O.A. No. 2622/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2622/2021
This the 02nd day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Dinesh Chander Juyal,
Aged about 55 years,
S/o Sh. Rama Nand Juyal,
Retired Assistant Loco Pilot,
Northern Railway, Moradabad Division,
R/o H. No. 323, Gali No. 13,
Milan Vihar-13, Muradabad (U.P.).
2. Prashant Juyal,
Aged about 26 years,
S/o Sh. Dinesh Chander Juyal,
R/o H. No. 323, Gali No. 13,
Milan Vihar-13, Muradabad (U.P.).
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the General Manager,
Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
Moradabad Division,
Moradabad (U.P.).
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)
ARTI
2026.02.05
ARTI
11:01:42
+05'30'
2
Item No.62/C-3
O.A. No. 2622/2021
ORDER (ORAL)
Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
1. The present OA has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 24.9.2021, declaring to the effect that same is illegal and arbitrary and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to appoint the applicant No.2 to any suitable post as per Railway Board circular dt. 14.06.2006 (PS No. 13167) with all consequential benefits.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation."
2. The Applicant No.1, Sh. Dinesh Chandra Juyal, was initially appointed in the Indian Railways on 14.04.1985 and was working as Assistant Loco Pilot under Northern Railway, Moradabad Division. He was medically de-categorised on 14.07.2003 from medical category A-1 to C-1 and below by the Divisional Medical Officer, Moradabad.
3. It is an admitted position that thereafter the applicant was subjected to multiple screenings, including on 26.07.2004, 12.01.2005, and again on 26.11.2009. Though a clerical post was stated to have been allotted in the screening dated 12.01.2005, it is also admitted by the respondents that the applicant was never substantively absorbed in the said post and continued to perform clerical duties on an ad-hoc basis under SSE/Loco/Moradabad.
ARTI 2026.02.05 ARTI 11:01:42 +05'30' 3 Item No.62/C-3 O.A. No. 2622/2021
4. Ultimately, the applicant was retired on medical grounds on 25.09.2017, though his normal due date of retirement was 31.12.2026. Following such medical retirement, the applicant submitted a claim for compassionate appointment of his son (Applicant No.2) under Railway Board Circular dated 14.06.2006 (PS-13167). The said claim was, however, rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Sh. Dinesh Chandra Juyal, Ex-Assistant Loco Pilot, Moradabad, was medically de- categorised on 14.07.2003 (Annexure R-1) from medical category A-1 to C-1 and below by the Divisional Medical Officer, Moradabad.
6. It is stated that the applicant was called for the first screening on 26.07.2004 (Annexure R-2); however, he did not appear. Thereafter, in the second screening held on 12.01.2005 (Annexure R-3), the Screening Committee allotted the post of Clerk in the appropriate scale in the Mechanical Department.
7. It is further submitted that the applicant did not submit any representation against the said allotment and continued to perform clerical duties under SSE/Loco/Moradabad. It is also stated that the applicant was again called for screening on 26.11.2009 (Annexure R-5), allegedly without taking into account that a clerical category had already been allotted to him on 12.01.2005.
ARTI 2026.02.05 ARTI 11:01:42 +05'30' 4 Item No.62/C-3 O.A. No. 2622/2021
8. According to the respondents, the applicant continued performing clerical duties under SSE/Loco/MB from 26.11.2009 to 21.03.2014.
9. The respondents further contend that Sh. Dinesh Chandra Juyal never formally joined the post of Clerk in the Mechanical Department and ultimately retired on 25.09.2017 from the running cadre, having allegedly drawn all benefits of the running cadre along with an additional 55% benefit. It is therefore asserted that no financial loss was suffered by the applicant and, consequently, he is not entitled to compassionate appointment for his son under Railway Board Circular PS-13167 (Annexure R-6).
10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
11. Firstly, the medical de-categorisation of the applicant on 14.07.2003 is an admitted fact. The respondents' own pleadings establish that despite repeated screenings, the applicant was never finally rehabilitated in an alternative substantive post.
12. Secondly, the contention that the applicant continued to discharge clerical duties does not amount to lawful absorption against an alternative post. Mere performance of clerical duties without formal appointment cannot defeat the statutory protection available to a medically de-categorised employee.
ARTI 2026.02.05 ARTI 11:01:42 +05'30' 5 Item No.62/C-3 O.A. No. 2622/2021
13. Thirdly, once the applicant was retired prematurely on medical grounds on 25.09.2017, his case squarely fell within the ambit of Railway Board Circular dated 14.06.2006 (PS-13167). The said circular does not make entitlement to compassionate appointment dependent upon alleged financial loss or receipt of running allowance, but on the fact of medical incapacitation leading to retirement.
14. Fourthly, once the claim of the applicant was duly considered by the competent authority under the applicable policy, the respondents cannot now be permitted to deny the consequential benefit by taking a contradictory and hyper-technical stand.
15. The impugned rejection is thus arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and contrary to the governing Railway Board policy.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.
17. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. The impugned order rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment is quashed and set aside.
2. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of Applicant No.2 for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with Railway Board Circular dated 14.06.2006 (PS-13167).
ARTI 2026.02.05 ARTI 11:01:42 +05'30' 6 Item No.62/C-3 O.A. No. 2622/2021
3. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/arti/
ARTI
2026.02.05
ARTI
11:01:42
+05'30'