SUNIL KUMAR DAS vs EAST COAST RAILWAY on 30 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK Order Sheet Item no.: 17 O.A./46/2024 (CUTTACK) [ COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT ] With M.A./69/2024 Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 20 Order Dated: 30/10/2026 SUNIL KUMAR DAS Vs EAST COAST RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate : DILLIP KUMAR MOHANTY

For Respondent(s) Advocate : S B DAS Order of The Tribunal Heard. Perused the records.

2. The applicant has filed this OA inter aila praying for direction to Resp. No.4 to provide him appointment on compassionate ground treating the retirement of his father from Railways on medical invalidation. By filing MA No. 69/2024 has sought to condone the delay in preferring this OA belatedly.

3. The respondents opposed the same stating that while the father of the applicant was working as Technician Gr.I under Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (G), E.Co.Rly., for showing his inability due to medical conditions, he was sent to Medical Board for examination and the Board upon examination advised that the employee concerned be continued under seek leave till his normal age of retirement, i.e. 31.12.2008. He while continuing as such retired from service on 31.12.2008 and he was paid all his retirement dues. His father also approached this Bench in OA No. 526/2009 challenging his non-declaration of medical invalidation before this Bench, which was dismissed on 06.11.2009 as withdrawn. After retirement, while enjoying monthly pension, he died in the year 2011. Since, father of the applicant did not retire/superannuated on medical invalidation, the appointment on compassionate ground sought by the applicant stating as to why his father was not declared medically invalidate when others were declared, being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

4. As per the rules, compassionate appointment is provide to one of the dependent family members to overcome the financial difficulties caused to the surviving members on two counts; one is when the employee concern dies while in service/in harness and, secondly, when the employee concerned is medically invalidated. The applicant did not produce any such document to establish that his father retired from railway service after being declared medically invalidated. He also did not breathe his last while in service. It is also not in dispute that after his normal date of retirement, he was sanctioned and paid all his retirement dues including monthly pension. It is also noteworthy that the father of the applicant earlier filed OA No. 526/2-009 before this Bench challenging the action of the respondents in not retiring him due to medical invalidation, which he himself withdrew. In the said premised, we see no reason much less to any such justifiable ground to hold that the applicant is entitled to due consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, which was unjustly denied to him.

5. For the discussions made above, this OA being devoid of merit stands dismissed along with pending MA, if any, by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pramod Kumar Das Member (A) Kalpeswar Behera ( ps )