Anoop Devdayal Jaiswal vs CENTRAL RAILWAY on 26 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

This application is filed by the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground.

Munarshi

2. Facts lie in narrow compass.

3. One Devdayal Jaiswal was the railway employee who expired on 01st August, 2011. The applicant is the son of the deceased Devdayal Jaiswal. He made application for compassionate appointment. His application for compassionate appointment was considered and he was found fit for the post of Technician (Fitter)-III vide Order dated 07th March, 2012. The applicant made representation on 05th April, 2012 for getting the appointment of Commercial Clerk as he had scored highest marks in suitability test for commercial clerk. It is the grievance of the applicant that this representation was never decided by the respondents. The respondents again offered appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground to the post of Technician (Fitter)-III. The applicant again made representation on 16th February, 2016 for getting the post of Commercial Clerk. The respondents did not reply to this representation. Therefore, the applicant filed OA No. 2215/2019. This application came to be decided on 07th November, 2023 vide which the respondents were directed to decide his representation dated 16th February, 2016.

Munarshi

This representation came to be rejected vide Order dated 02nd January, 2024 (Annexure-A-1). In this Order (Annexure-A-1), respondents have stated that the applicant was offered appointment twice but he did not accept it. 11 years have passed since the passing away of the deceased employee and, therefore, he is not entitled to be considered for this post though it was offered to him twice.

4. Respondents filed reply contending that the applicant was offered post of Technician (Fitter)-III twice but he did not join it. They contend that his representation dated 08th December, 2014 for the post of Commercial Clerk was rejected vide Order dated 12th December, 2014. They contend that he was again offered the post of Technician (Fitter)-III vide letter dated 03rd February, 2016 but the applicant did not join.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has secured highest marks in suitability test for commercial clerk

Munarshi but he has been offered the post of Technician (Fitter)-III. When applicant refused to join and made representation that he should have been offered the post of Commercial Clerk, the respondents rejected it vide order dated 12th December, 2014. He submits that the respondents have appointed the candidates who had scored lower marks than the applicant as Commercial Clerks. He submits that no reason is assigned for not granting of the post of Commercial Clerk to the applicant despite scoring highest marks. He submits that the applicant is now ready to join any post the respondents offer.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

8. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was offered the post of Technician (Fitter)-III in Electrical (General Services) Department on compassionate ground but he did not join the duty and insisted on getting the appointment on compassionate ground for the post of Commercial Clerk. This application was rejected on 12th December, 2014. The applicant did not challenge this order for the reasons best known to him. After waiting for the applicant for

Munarshi another two years, the respondents vide communication dated 03rd February, 2016, asked the applicant to join the duty on or before 18th February, 2016 otherwise, it will be presumed that he was not interested in appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant instead of joining duties, again made representation for appointment as Commercial Clerk. This application was already rejected on 12th December, 2014. The applicant did not challenge this order. He again made the same representation. This shows that the attitude of the applicant was adamant. His approach (i.e. my way or the highway) is not in consonance with the principles of appointment on compassionate grounds. When his application was rejected vide Order dated 12th December, 2014, he should have immediately challenged the Order but he did not challenge it. He waited for another two years. When the respondents again issued letter to him on 03rd February, 2016, he did not join the duties. He waited for another three years and then filed the OA No. 2215/2019. This chronology shows that the applicant was not interested in appointment on compassionate grounds. He was insistent on the appointment as Commercial Clerk. This attitude

Munarshi shows that he doesn’t need the appointment on compassionate grounds.

9. Appointment on compassionate grounds is made to provide succor to the bereaved family. The purpose is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased. The approach of the applicant is not in consonance with the avowed objected of compassionate appointment. His attitude and chronology of events shows that he is not in need of job. That is the reason despite rejection of his application on 12th December, 2014, he did not join the post of Technician (Fitter)-III. He did not join this post even after issuance of letter dated 03rd February, 2016. He filed the OA after waiting for three years i.e. in the year 2019. This shows that the applicant was not in need of appointment on compassionate grounds.

10. Now, he has shown his willingness to join any post offered by the respondents on compassionate grounds. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I find that the applicant for no justifiable reason, refused to join the post offered to him. When compassionate appointment is offered, the dependents of the

Munarshi employee cannot say rather claim that they should be offered a particular post. In the case of The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. vs. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc. in Civil Appeal Nos.12640-12643 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (c) Nos.8776-8779 of 2023) dated 12th December, 2025, Supreme Court has held thus:- “11. This Court has also opined on the issue whether a dependent family member of a deceased employee can seek compassionate appointment on a post higher than the post which the deceased was holding, merely on the ground that he fulfils the criteria of such higher post. The opinion expressed is that the same will run contrary to the very object of grant of compassionate appointment, which is provided to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis. Employment on compassionate basis is provided only on account of humanitarian consideration. Relevant paragraph of the judgment of this Court in Premlata (Supra) is extracted below:

“10.2 In a given case, it may happen that the dependant of the deceased employee who has applied for appointment on compassionate ground is having the educational qualification of Class II or Class I post and the deceased employee was working on the post of Class/Grade IV and/or lower than the post applied, in that case the dependant/applicant cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post. The aforesaid shall be contrary to the object and purpose of grant of appointment on compassionate ground which as observed hereinabove is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis on the death of the breadearner. As observed above, appointment on compassionate ground is provided out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that some source of livelihood is provided and family would be able to make both ends meet.”

Munarshi

11. Supreme Court has opined that a dependent family member of a deceased employee cannot seek compassionate appointment on a post higher than the post which the deceased was holding, merely on the ground that he fulfils the criteria of such higher post. The same will run contrary to the very object of grant of compassionate appointment, which is provided to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis.

12. The refusal to accept the offer of appointment offered to the applicant shows that there was no acute financial crisis. Therefore, the refusal of the respondents to offer him the appointment on compassionate grounds subsequently, is justified. Application is therefore, devoid of any substance. Hence, OA is rejected with no order as to costs.

13. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.

(Justice M.G. Sewlikar)

Member (J)

nk.

Munarshi