SHRI ANIL PANDEY vs M/o Railways on 16 October 2026

O R D E R

By Mallika Arya, AM

Through this Original Application, the applicant is seeking directions to the respondents to grant appointment to his son on compassionate grounds, after his medical decategorisation in view of the policy and guidelines of the respondents.

2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Additional Chief Ticket Inspector (ACTI) in Jabalpur Division under the administrative control of erstwhile Central Railway (now West Central Railway). He was medically de-categorised on 05.03.1998 (Annexure A/1) while working as ACTI and was retired on Medical Grounds on 12.04.1999 (Annexure A/2). After retirement, applicant approached Divisional Administration for grant of appointment to his son Ankush Pandey on Compassionate Grounds, in light of policy for medically de-categorized employees. All applications/representations submitted by the applicant since medical de-categorization are annexed as Annexure A/3. The then DRM/Jabalpur called for the entire departmental case file and after perusal, gave a detailed Note dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure A/4) directing Respondent No.4 (Sr. DPO WCR) for considering the case for

VISHAL KUSHWAH

appointment of applicant's son in Class-IV category on compassionate grounds. In compliance of the same, Sr. DPO JBP forwarded the matter to CPO/WCR. Instead of considering case as per Railway Board’s guidelines and DRM's Note, Chief Personnel Officer did not take adequate steps. The applicant was under constant medical treatment and is a 69 years old Senior Citizen. He again approached Respondent No.1 vide detailed Representation dated 15.07.2017 (Annexure A/5) praying for compassionate appointment for his son on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds. Respondent No.3 after considering representation, forwarded the matter vide letter dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure A/6) to Sr. DPO, Jabalpur for necessary action in light of representation dated 15.07.2017 and Note dated 30.08.2010 of DRM. However, no action was taken by Respondent No.4.

3. The respondents have filed reply wherein it has been submitted that while working as ACTI, the applicant was medically examined and found unfit in his working category and was medically de-categorised on 05.03.1998 (Annexure A/1). After being declared unfit in BEE-TWO category vide order dated 05.03.1998 (Annexure A/1), he was called by Screening Committee for an alternate post. The Screening Committee found him fit for post of Head Clerk. He was intimated vide letter dated 29.01.1999 (Annexure R/1) to appear for an interview on 12.02.1999.

VISHAL KUSHWAH

He remained absent and failed to make any communication. Another opportunity was given to him vide letter dated 01.04.1999 (Annexure R/2) to appear on 12.04.1999. However, he did not attend. The applicant was informed vide letter dated 05/18.05.1999 (Annexure R/3) that since he is not willing to accept the alternative job, therefore it was decided to retire him w.e.f. 12.04.1999. He was asked to submit his objections within 15 days. As no objection was received from the applicant, he was finally retired w.e.f. 12.04.1999. The DRM vide Note dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure A/4), recommended the case of the applicant for offering job to his son Ankush Pandey and directed Personnel Branch to examine if he satisfied the other requirements before forwarding his case to Headquarters. His case was sent to Headquarters vide letter dated 11.09.2012 (Annexure R-4). Chief Personnel Officer vide letter dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure R-5) rejected the case observing the following in light of Medical Certificate of CMO dated 05.03.1998 (Annexure R-6) : "He has been declared medically unfit for B-2 as ACTI and fit for B-2 for the job where strenuous and train running working is not involved and fit in B-2 for sedentary job." The applicant was unfit in B-2 (safety) category. However, he was fit in same medical category i.e. B-2 for a sedentary job. Hence, his ward could not be granted appointment on compassionate grounds.

VISHAL KUSHWAH

Railway Board vide letter dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure R-7) clarified that cases of compassionate appointment are to be dealt keeping in view as follows: "A Railway employee can be termed as medically decategorised only when he/she has been declared unfit in his/her original post as well as original medical category but fit in lower medical category/post. As applicant was declared fit in his original medical category (B- 2), he has not been treated as medically decategorised, as per rules. Hence his ward is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The issue has also been decided by this Tribunal in OA No. 200/00239/2017 vide order dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure R-8). The Original Application filed by the applicant is not within the limitation period. Further the applicant has not made his son Ankush Pandey a party, for whom compassionate appointment has been sought.

4. We have considered the matter, heard the counsel and perused the pleadings and documents annexed with the Original Application.

5. It is a fact on record (Annexure A/1) that on 05.03.1998, the applicant was found medically unfit under the BEE-TWO category for the post of ACTI and found fit under BEE-TWO for an assignment where strenuous work was not involved, i.e. only sedentary job. Thereafter, he was called by Screening Committee for an alternate job.

VISHAL KUSHWAH

The Screening Committee found him fit for post of Head Clerk. He was called for interview vide letter dated 29.01.1999 (Annexure R/1) and letter dated 01.04.1999 (Annexure R/2). He remained absent on both the occasions and failed to communicate the reasons for his absence with the respondents. As he failed to accept an alternate job, his case was closed on 12.04.1999 and he was retired on medical grounds on 12.04.1999. The applicant is seeking compassionate appointment for his son under medically decategorised category.

6. As per Railway Board's Master Circular and clarification dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure R/7) it has been clarified as follows: "A Railway employee can be termed as medically decategorised only when he/she has been declared unfit in his/her original post as well as original medical category but fit in lower medical category/post. Compassionate appointment cases are to be dealt keeping in view the same."

7. In the present case, as per CMO’s certificate dated 05.03.1998 (Annexure R/6), applicant is unfit in B-2 as ACTI (where strenuous train running is involved) however he is fit in B-2 for sedentary job. Since his medical category remains B-2, there has been no downgrading to lower category like C-1 or C-2. Therefore, as per rules, applicant is not a medically decategorised employee. He is an employee who is unfit for a

VISHAL KUSHWAH

particular post but fit for another post in same medical category. Respondents offered him an alternate post of Head Clerk in same category (B-2) vide Annexure R/1 and Annexure R/2. The Applicant refused to appear and did not accept the alternate job.

8. We take note of the DRM's Note dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure A/4). It was only a recommendation to examine and consider the case as per extant rules. It does not confer any right on the applicant. When case was examined by CPO, it was rejected vide letter dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure R/5) in light of medical certificate of CMO and rules on the subject with the following observation: The medical category of Shri Anil Kumar Pandey is unchanged. In such case, there is no provision as per rules to grant compassionate appointment. In view of such observations, the case was returned by headquarters to the Division.

9. This Tribunal in OA 200/00239/2017 dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure R/8) has taken a similar view holding as follows: “having found fit in same medical category does not entitle ward for compassionate appointment.”

VISHAL KUSHWAH

10. Further, the son of the applicant Shri Ankush Pandey, for whom appointment has been sought, has not been impleaded as a party. Hence the Original Application suffers from non-joinder of the necessary party.

11. Since applicant’s case has not been considered under the medically decategorised category, the case for grant of compassionate appointment of his son has been rightly rejected by the respondents. In view of above, we find no infirmity in action of respondents. Hence, the Original Application being devoid of merits is dismissed. No costs.

(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member Judicial Member VK/-

VISHAL KUSHWAH