Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Sudhir Kumar Pal vs Northern Railway on 17 October, 2025
CAT, Lucknow OA 332/00677/2024 Sudhir Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/00677/2024
This 17th day of October, 2025
HON'BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Sudhir Kumar Pal, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Sri Jagdish, R/o
Village - Tirwa, Post - Baghauli, Distt.- Hardoi.
... Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern
Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway,
Moradabad.
3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway,
Moradabad.
... Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER HON'BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A) In this case relating to compassionate appointment, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"1. To quash the impugned orders dated 24.06.2024 alongwith order dated 01.05.2023 & 31.10.2022 (contained as Annexure No. A-1, A-2 & A-3 to this OA), with all consequential benefits.
2. To consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment on the suitable post and allow him joining as he was already found suitable for compassionate appointment, with all consequential benefits.
3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
4. Cost of the present case as the applicant has unnecessarily been dragged into litigation."Page 1 of 5
CAT, Lucknow OA 332/00677/2024 Sudhir Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant's father died in harness on 25.11.2014 while working on the post of Trackman under the respondents leaving behind his wife, two sons (including the applicant) and one daughter. The respondents rejected the applicant's appointment on compassionate ground for the reason that his date of birth in Class VIII certificate was recorded as 02.08.1987 while in the Class X certificate it was shown as 07.07.1997 and instead of getting his date of birth corrected in the High School certificate, the applicant appeared and passed in Class X examination again in 2022 without obtaining permission from the respondents.
3. The applicant states that he had passed Class VIII at the time of making the application for appointment on compassionate ground and in the Class VIII certificate his date of birth was recorded as 02.08.1987 and that the respondents, vide their letter dated 09.09.2015, offered to appoint him as a Trainee. He further states that due to inadvertent error, his date of birth in High School 2015 mark-sheet was shown as 07.07.1997 and the respondents, vide letter dated 17.09.2019, directed him to explain the difference of nearly 10 years between the two dates of birth. In response to the applicant's representation dated 14.10.2019, the respondents, vide letter dated 07.04.2022, informed him that consideration of his case was possible only after correction of date of birth in the High School certificate. The applicant contends that as his repeated attempts for correction of date of birth in High School certificate did not any result, he appeared in High School examination again in 2022 with the correct date of birth, i.e., 02.08.1987, but the respondents have rejected his case on the Page 2 of 5 CAT, Lucknow OA 332/00677/2024 Sudhir Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
ground that he had appeared in High School examination without obtaining their permission.
4. The respondents state that the applicant was directed to get his date of birth corrected in the High School certificate because earlier the applicant had informed on 20.06.2016 that he had requested the concerned Board for correction of his date of birth. It is further stated that the applicant could not be appointed as Trainee on the basis of his Class VIII qualification because the minimum educational qualification for Group 'D' was decided as Class X vide RBE No. 73 of 2017 dated 27.07.2017. It is contended that subsequently, the applicant submitted High School certificate of 2022 with corrected date of birth, i.e., 02.08.1987 which was rejected by the competent authority for the reason that the applicant had furnished undertaking that he shall be responsible if his documents are found to be fake or faulty and that without getting his date of birth corrected in the High School certificate submitted earlier, he passed Class X examination again without permission which is tantamount to wrong declaration and that his case cannot be processed further as credibility of any documentary proof given by the family is questionable. It is further contended that compassionate appointment is a matter of policy and the employer cannot be compelled to provide compassionate appointment contrary to the policy/scheme.
5. Heard both the parties.
6.1 It is not in dispute that the applicant's date of birth in Class VIII certificate was 02.08.1987, which was verified from BSA, Hardoi, while his date of birth in High School 2015 certificate was Page 3 of 5 CAT, Lucknow OA 332/00677/2024 Sudhir Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
07.07.1997 and that he was asked in the year 2016 and on subsequent occasions to get his date of birth recorded in the High School certificate corrected. It is also not in dispute that the applicant had informed the respondents in 2016 itself that he was trying to get his date of birth in High School certificate corrected. 6.2 The respondents cannot, on one hand, harp that the applicant should correct his date of birth in the High School certificate of 2015 and, on the other hand, reject his High School certificate of 2022 with the correct date of birth on the untenable ground that their permission for appearing in the High School examination in 2022 was not obtained and that the documents submitted by the applicant cannot be relied upon. In other words the respondents are estopped from blowing hot and cold on the issue of correct date of birth in the applicant's High School certificate. It is the responsibility of the respondents to have the High School certificate of 2022 verified from the authority concerned, if they have any doubt or if their policy and procedure require so.
6.3 In conclusion, the orders dated 31.10.2022, 01.05.2023 and 24.06.2024 passed by the respondents are arbitrary and, therefore, unsustainable in law.
7.1 In view of the foregoing, the orders dated 31.10.2022, 01.05.2023 and 24.06.2024 passed by the respondents are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the applicant's case for appointment on compassionate ground within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Page 4 of 5 CAT, Lucknow OA 332/00677/2024 Sudhir Kumar Pal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
7.2 This OA is disposed of in above terms.
7.3 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
7.4 The parties shall bear their own costs.
Digitally
Warij signed by
Yadav Warij
Yadav (Pankaj Kumar)
Member (A)
Warij
Page 5 of 5