Delay Alone Cannot Defeat Compassionate Appointment When Caused By Lack Of Awareness And Financial Distress Is Established; Andhra Pradesh High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela held that a request for compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely due to delay when the delay is attributable to lack of awareness and the family’s financial distress is established. Setting aside the tribunal’s order that had upheld the railway authorities’ rejection of a dependent daughter’s request, the Court held that the lapse of about five years after the employee’s voluntary retirement could not, by itself, defeat the claim in the circumstances. It directed the authorities to reconsider the request and decide it within three months, after making a balanced and objective assessment of the family’s financial position and other relevant conditions.
The writ petition arose from the rejection of a request for compassionate appointment made on behalf of a dependent of a railway employee who had been medically de-categorised and had opted for voluntary retirement. The employee had served the Railways for several decades before being declared medically unfit for his post, following which he retired voluntarily and received pensionary and retiral benefits. Several years after the medical de-categorisation and retirement, a representation was submitted seeking compassionate appointment for a dependent, citing the family’s financial condition and personal circumstances.
The railway authorities initially rejected the request on the ground that it was time-barred. That rejection was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that it was not supported by reasons, after which a fresh speaking order was passed by the competent authority again rejecting the claim, primarily on the ground of delay and the availability of retiral benefits. The dependent challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, contending that the applicable Railway Board instructions permitted consideration of such cases on individual merit and that the family’s financial distress had not been properly assessed. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the delay was fatal. The present writ petition was filed questioning the Tribunal’s order and seeking reconsideration of the claim for compassionate appointment in terms of the relevant Railway Board circulars.
The Division Bench examined the object and scope of compassionate appointment and observed that “the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee, but the sense of immediacy will be evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependent in seeking compassionate appointment.”
While referring to the factual background, the Court recorded that “the application filed for compassionate appointment was actively considered by the initial authority i.e., the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer on 07.11.2006, wherein he has recommended the case after conducting enquiry, clearly indicating the financial distress of the family and the other circumstances in the note sheet.”
The Bench noted that “this recommendation does not find place in the speaking order addressed to the petitioner while rejecting the application,” and observed that such omission “indicates that there is no application of mind and rejects the case on the ground of delay.”
Referring to the Railway Board instructions, the Court stated that “while considering such requests for compassionate grounds appointment the General Manager should satisfy himself on the basis of balanced and objective assessment of the financial & other conditions of the family, that the grounds for compassionate ground appointment in each such case, is justified.”
On the issue of delay, the Court observed that “the delay of five years in making the application after the voluntary retirement i.e., 22.03.2000, cannot be considered as inordinate delay as observed by the Tribunal.” The Bench further recorded the explanation offered by the petitioner that “my father and myself and other family members are not that much were aware of the Railway Rules regarding compassionate appointment.”
The Court also noted that the Tribunal “did not venture into the enquiry so conducted by the said officer which was placed as material papers annexed to the application and simply dismissed on the ground” that the competent authority had taken note of delay. The Bench observed that such an approach was unsustainable in light of the material available on record.
The Court directed that “the order of the Tribunal dated 27.12.2018 passed in O.A.No.1534 of 2014 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider for appointing the petitioner under compassionate grounds within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs,” and all pending miscellaneous applications “shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Rama Mohan Rao Banda, Advocate
For the Respondents: Poluri Prabhakar Rao, Advocate; Deputy Solicitor General of India
Case Title: Bora Narayanamma v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010217762019
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 9558 of 2019
Bench: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela
