ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Compassionate appointment – Medically de-categorised railway employee – Voluntary retirement – Application made after five years – Delay explained – Financial distress – Recommendation by Divisional Personnel Officer – Non-consideration by General Manager – Mechanical rejection on ground of delay – Railway Board Instructions (RBE No.106/2004 & RBE No.78/2006) – Tribunal erred in treating delay as inordinate – Writ petition allowed – CAT order set aside

Thursday, January 8, 2026

Compassionate appointment – Medically de-categorised railway employee – Voluntary retirement – Application made after five years – Delay explained – Financial distress – Recommendation by Divisional Personnel Officer – Non-consideration by General Manager – Mechanical rejection on ground of delay – Railway Board Instructions (RBE No.106/2004 & RBE No.78/2006) – Tribunal erred in treating delay as inordinate – Writ petition allowed – CAT order set aside – Direction to reconsider appointment

Compassionate appointment – Medically de-categorised railway employee – Voluntary retirement – Application made after five years – Delay explained – Financial distress – Recommendation by Divisional Personnel Officer – Non-consideration by General Manager – Mechanical rejection on ground of delay – Railway Board Instructions (RBE No.106/2004 & RBE No.78/2006) – Tribunal erred in treating delay as inordinate – Writ petition allowed – CAT order set aside – Direction to reconsider appointment

FACTS

The petitioner is the daughter of a deceased railway employee who joined service on 03.12.1970 as Gangman and was medically de-categorised on 18.08.1999. He opted for voluntary retirement on 22.03.2000, which was accepted by the Railways. At the time of retirement, he had three unmarried daughters, two sons and his wife, and was granted pensionary benefits.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 06.09.2006. After enquiry into the financial condition of the family, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer recommended the case on 07.11.2006 for appointment in Group-D and forwarded it to the General Manager as required under Railway Board instructions.

The General Manager rejected the request on 28.08.2014, solely on the ground that the application was time-barred and that the petitioner had attained majority prior to medical de-categorisation.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, by order dated 27.12.2018 in O.A.No.1534 of 2014, upheld the rejection on the ground of delay.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(Paras 1–4)

ISSUE

Whether the delay of five years in applying for compassionate appointment, when explained and when financial distress was found on enquiry, could be treated as an inordinate delay so as to deny compassionate appointment.
(Para 6)

DISCUSSION & FINDINGS

Nature and object of compassionate appointment

The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee to prevent economic death, drawing support from Article 39 of the Constitution.
(Paras 9–11)

Delay and loss of immediacy

While acknowledging the principle that delay dilutes the object of compassionate appointment, the Court held that delay cannot be viewed mechanically, particularly when the application was actively considered and recommended by the competent Divisional authority.
(Paras 11–12)

Role of Railway Board Instructions

A combined reading of RBE No.106/2004 and RBE No.78/2006 shows that:

Cases of medically de-categorised employees opting for voluntary retirement are to be personally considered by the General Manager.
The General Manager must make a balanced and objective assessment of financial and other conditions of the family.
(Paras 17–19)

Non-application of mind by the General Manager

The Court found that:

The enquiry and recommendation dated 07.11.2006, which clearly recorded financial distress, were not even adverted to in the rejection order.
The rejection was mechanical, based solely on delay, without considering financial hardship or the enquiry report.
(Paras 14, 20)

Error by the Tribunal

The Tribunal failed to examine the enquiry conducted by the Divisional Personnel Officer and erroneously treated the delay as “inordinate”, despite explanation and active consideration by the authorities.
(Paras 20–21)

DECISION

The delay of five years cannot be treated as inordinate in the facts of the case.
The rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment suffered from non-application of mind.
The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27.12.2018 in O.A.No.1534 of 2014 is set aside.
(Paras 21–22)

FINAL ORDER

The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with Railway Board instructions within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
No order as to costs.
(Para 22)

RATIO DECIDENDI

Delay in seeking compassionate appointment cannot be treated as fatal where it is explained and where financial distress is established.
General Manager must personally apply mind to enquiry reports and financial condition as mandated by Railway Board instructions.
Mechanical rejection on the ground of delay alone vitiates the decision.
Tribunal’s failure to consider relevant material amounts to an error warranting interference under Article 226.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN