PRASHANT SUBHASH DODE vs CENTRAL RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

ORDER

The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “8.1.1. That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for records and after perusing the same be pleased to Quash and set aside the rejection orders dated 08.02.2021, 25.04.2023, and 23.08.2023, issued by the respondent.

8.1.2. That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent to consider and process the application of the Applicant for compassionate appointment afresh, without discrimination based on the marital status of his parents.

8.1.3. That This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.2 The facts of the case are that the applicant is the biological son of the deceased, Subhash Dode, who was employed as a sweeper in the Central Railway at Bhusawal. The applicant's

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi entire family, including his mother, Durgabai, was financially dependent on the income earned by the deceased. The sudden demise of Subhash Dode on 27th September, 2007, left the family in a state of severe economic distress. 2.3 The applicant submits that his father, Subhash Dode, had entered into two marriages due to personal and customary circumstances. His first marriage was with Suganbai, with whom he had one child, Sangita Subhash Dode. This marriage ended in a customary divorce on 25th July, 1983, in accordance with the traditions of the Koli Community. The divorce was mutually accepted by both parties, and no further claims or disputes were raised thereafter. 2.4 The applicant further submits that following the divorce, on 27th July, 1983, Subhash Dode remarried Suganbai as per customs. In the same year, he also married Durgabai, again in accordance with the customs of the Koli Community. The applicant, Prashant Subhash Dode, was born out of the wedlock of Subhash Dode and Durgabai, along with his siblings Jyoti,

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

Suwarna, and Deepali. 2.5 The applicant submits that after the birth of these children, Subhash Dode, recognizing his responsibility towards his new family, duly nominated Durgabai and her children as beneficiaries in his pension form on 10th November, 1996. This act demonstrated his intention to ensure the financial security of his family by recognizing Durgabai as his wife and their children as his legal heirs. 2.6 The applicant submits that after the death of Subhash Dode on 27th September, 2007, the applicant's family was thrown into financial uncertainty. Despite performing the last rites of the deceased, Durgabai and her children, including the applicant, were deprived of any financial assistance or pension benefits due to legal disputes raised by Suganbai. 2.7 The applicant submits that a succession certificate was eventually issued in favor of Suganbai after prolonged legal proceedings, but this did not resolve the financial difficulties faced by Durgabai's family. Despite the issuance of the succession

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi certificate, the Railway authorities consistently denied the applicant's claims for compassionate appointment on the ground that he was the son of the second wife, which is both unjust and legally untenable. The copy of the order dated 18th March, 2016 passed by the Hon'ble Court of JT. Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhusawal is at Annexure A-4. 2.8 The applicant further submits that he applied to the department for compassionate appointment along with all the necessary documents, but his application was rejected time and again. 2.9 The applicant submits that his applications for compassionate appointment dated 08th F ebruary, 2021, 25th April, 2023, and 23rd August, 2023 were rejected on arbitrary grounds, primarily citing his status as the son of the second wife. The applicant submits that this reasoning is discriminatory and disregards the true purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme, which is to alleviate the financial distress of the family of the deceased employee.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

2.10 The applicant further submits that the rejection of his applications has resulted in severe financial hardship for his family. The applicant was dependent on the deceased, and after his demise, the family has been struggling to meet its basic needs. The respondent's denial of compassionate appointment has only exacerbated the situation, leading to undue hardship and suffering. 2.11 The applicant emphasizes that the compassionate appointment scheme is designed to support families like his, who have lost their sole breadwinner. The respondent's rejection of his application is contrary to the very object of the scheme, which aims to prevent families from falling into destitution following the death of an earning member. Hence, this Original Application.

3. The following grounds have been raised by the applicant: “5.1. The principle underlying the compassionate appointment scheme is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee who has left them in a state of economic distress. The Applicant, being the son of the deceased Subhash Dode, falls squarely within the ambit of this scheme. The rejection of his application solely on the grounds of his mother's

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi marital status violates the very purpose of the scheme, which is to prevent the family from suffering financial destitution.

5.2. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The denial of appointment to the Applicant on the basis that he is the son of the second wife is discriminatory and arbitrary. It is well-settled law that children born from a second marriage are entitled to the same legal protections as those from a first marriage, and any discrimination on this ground is unconstitutional.

5.3 The Applicant had a legitimate expectation of being considered for a compassionate appointment, given that his father had legally recognized Durgabai and her children as his dependents in the pension form. This recognition creates a legitimate expectation that the family would be considered for the benefits of compassionate appointment. The Respondent's failure to honor this expectation is not only a breach of trust but also a violation of the principles of fairness and justice.

5.4. The Respondent's policy of denying compassionate appointments to children of a second marriage is arbitrary and lacks any rational basis. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Supreme Court emphasized that the objective of the compassionate appointment scheme is to mitigate the hardship of the deceased employee's family. The rejection of the Applicant's application on the grounds of his mother's marital status fails to consider the financial distress faced by the family, rendering the decision arbitrary and unjust.

5.5. In Govind Prasad v. R.G. Prasad & Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that the rules regarding compassionate appointments should be interpreted with compassion and humanity, keeping in mind the purpose

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

of the scheme - to alleviate the distress of the family of the deceased. The Respondent's rigid interpretation of the rules, resulting in the denial of the Applicant's rightful claim, is contrary to the humane purpose of the scheme.

5.6. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 493, the Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of compassionate appointments is to prevent families from falling into destitution following the untimely death of a breadwinner. The Applicant's family has been left without any means of livelihood, and the denial of a compassionate appointment has pushed them further into financial hardship. The Respondent's decision is in direct contravention of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

5.7. In V. Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 730, the Supreme Court held that the object of the compassionate appointment scheme is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the sudden death of an employee, not to provide employment as a matter of right. The Respondent's rejection of the Applicant's application fails to consider the severe financial hardship faced by the Applicant's family and thus defeats the purpose of the scheme.

5.8. In Mohan Mahto v. Central Coalfields Ltd. (2014) 15 SCC 630, the Supreme Court held that in cases where the family is left in financial hardship after the employee's death, the administration should adopt a lenient view in processing applications for compassionate appointments. The Respondent's failure to adopt a compassionate and lenient approach in the Applicant's case has resulted in grave injustice and hardship.

5.9. Judicial precedents, including those mentioned

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi above, consistently emphasize the need for a humane and compassionate approach in dealing with cases of compassionate appointments. The Respondent's decision to reject the Applicant's claim disregards these principles and sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the very purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme.

5.10. The Applicant further submits that the rejection of his applications has resulted in severe financial hardship for his family. The Applicant was a dependent on the deceased, and with his passing, the family has been struggling to meet their basic needs. The Respondent's denial of a compassionate appointment has only exacerbated the situation, leading to undue hardship and suffering”.

4. The respondents have filed their reply contending that the applicant has filed the present application beyond the period of limitation. It is stated that the claim for compassionate appointment was rejected vide letter dated 12th February, 2021. Hence, the applicant ought to have filed an application for condonation of delay, citing reasons for his inability to file the present application within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 4.2 It is submitted that it is an admitted position that Late Shri Subhash Puna Dode had contracted a second marriage during

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi the subsistence of his first marriage. The applicant has failed to produce any documentary evidence or legal proof in support of the alleged customary divorce between the deceased employee and his first wife. Therefore, the assertion regarding such a divorce is denied as being unsubstantiated. 4.3 It is further submitted that any marriage contracted must be in accordance with law, and in the absence of documentary proof or prior permission from the competent authority, such marriage cannot be recognized for the purposes of compassionate appointment under the applicable service rules. It is submitted that the existence of a dispute between the first wife and the second wife of the deceased employee is a matter of public record. The respondents are bound to act in accordance with the extant Office Memoranda (OMs), circulars, and guidelines issued by the competent authority from time to time and have acted accordingly in the present matter. 4.4 It is submitted that the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment was validly rejected by the competent

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi authority in strict compliance with the relevant rules, instructions, and administrative guidelines. There has been no violation of procedure or any miscarriage of justice. The applicant was duly informed of the reasons for rejection of his request for compassionate appointment, including the fact that he is the son of the second wife of the deceased employee, whose marriage was not recognized under the service rules due to lack of prior administrative permission. 4.5 It was submitted that the applicant has not furnished any cogent material or evidence to demonstrate that the family is undergoing financial hardship, as alleged. Given that more than a decade has elapsed since the demise of the deceased employee, it is difficult to accept the contention that the same level of financial distress continues to persist without any substantiation. The respondents have duly considered the relevant facts, documents, and applicable legal provisions and guidelines before passing the rejection order. The said decision is reasoned, lawful and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

4.6 It is further submitted that the objective of the scheme for compassionate appointment is to provide employment on compassionate grounds to one eligible dependent family member of a government servant, who dies while in service, with a view to relieving the family from immediate financial distress and enabling it to tide over the emergent crisis. However, such appointment is not a matter of right and is strictly subject to the fulfilment of all prescribed conditions, including the availability of vacancies and compliance with the eligibility criteria laid down under the applicable rules and administrative instructions. 4.7 It is contended that, in the instant case, it is an admitted position that the deceased employee had contracted a second marriage without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, which is a mandatory requirement under the service rules. In view of the absence of such administrative approval, and taking into consideration the extant rules, guidelines, and the considerable lapse of time (over 13 years) since the date of death of the employee, the competent authority, upon thorough scrutiny of

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi the case, found the applicant ineligible and accordingly rejected the request for compassionate appointment on the grounds of non-compliance and suppression of material facts. The decision of the competent authority was duly communicated to the applicant vide this office letter dated 09th June, 2020. 4.8 It is further contended that the OA is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed in limine. The committee thoroughly examined the facts of the applicant’s case and accordingly, took its decision. It is a settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. It is subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in this regard. The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to ensure that the family of the deceased employee does not suffer immediate financial hardship. After such a long lapse of time, granting compassionate appointment at this stage would defeat the very purpose for which the scheme was framed. Hence, the OA deserves to be dismissed.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

5. The applicant has filed rejoinder and made submissions countering the reply of the respondents, which will be discussed in the later paras.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the plead- ings and documents available on record.

7. The facts are that the applicant’s father, Shri Subhash Dode, died on 27th September, 2007. Subhash Dode belonged to the Koli Tribe. His first marriage was with Suganbai. He also married Durgabai as per the customs of the Koli community. The applicant is the son from the second marriage. It is undisputed that Subhash Dode had nominated his second wife, Durgabai, and his children from her as beneficiaries in the pension form. The application for compassionate appointment was made by the applicant in 2007. After consideration of the same, the respondents issued letter dated 07th January, 2008 for medical examination of the applicant. An application for compassionate appointment was also received from

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

the first wife, Suganbai. Thereafter, the matter was kept in abeyance. Civil cases were filed by the applicant and his mother for obtaining succession certificates and by the first wife Suganbai, for claiming dues, etc. The Court held that the first wife was not the legal heir of the deceased, Subhash Dode. It also held that the first wife, her daughter, the applicant and his three sisters (born from the second wife) were the legal heirs. Thereafter, mediation ensued between the families of the first wife and the second wife and the disputes between them were resolved by such mediation and the settlement was accepted by the Court vide its judgment dated 01st January, 2018. The first wife has also given an NOC in favour of the applicant for the purpose of compassionate appointment. The applicant thereafter resubmitted an application for compassionate appointment to the respondents on 10th January, 2019. The said application was rejected by the respondents on 09th June, 2020. The applicant again submitted an application on 27th January, 2021, which was rejected vide letter dated 12th February, 2021. The applicant again made an application, which was rejected

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi vide letter dated 25th April, 2023. His letter addressed to the Minister of Railways dated 10th July, 2023, on the same subject, was also rejected vide letter dated 23rd August, 2023.

8. The reasons given for rejection are reproduced below for ready reference: - “विषय अनुकंपा के आधार पर नियुक्ति के संबंध में । संदर्भ : आपका आवेदन दिन ांक 27.01.2021 ।

**********

आप‌के उपरोक्त्त आवेदन के संदर्भ में सूचित किया जाता है कि अपने अनुकंपा के आधार पर नियुक्ति हेतु 2007 में आवेदन किया था, उस समय अपने प्रशासन को इस बात की जानकारी नह ीं दी थी कि आप भूतपूर्व कर्मचारी की दूसरी पत्नी के पुत्र है। अनुकंपा के आंधार पर नियुक्ति की सम्पूर्ण प्रक्रिया होन के बाद कर्मचारी की प्रथम पत्नी द्वारा प्रशासन को मालूम पड़ी कि आप दूसरी पत्नी की संतान है। अतः आप नियमानुसार अनुकंपा के आधार पर नियुक्ति के लिए पात्र नह ीं है ।

अब आपका मामला 13 वर्ष पुराना हो चुका है, आपने प्रशासन से मामले की सत्यता छुपाई हैं। अतः आपका मामला सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा अस्वीकृत किया गया है।“.

9. From the above, it is clear that the application was rejected for the following reasons:

(i) The applicant was the son of the second wife;

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

(ii) The matter was 13 years old; and

(iii) That the truth had been suppressed while making the application.

10. In their reply, the respondents have taken the same grounds for rejection. It has also been submitted that since the rejection was made on 12th February, 2021, the present application is barred from limitation. It was further argued that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief and, since the issue is more than 13 years old, there was no requirement for immediate relief that is necessary for the family. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents that RBE No.218/2019 permitted consideration of children born from second marriage for compassionate appointment, but only prospectively, from the date of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. V.R. Tripathi, Civil Appeal No. 12015 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No.32004/2016 dated 11th December, 2018. Since the applicant's case pertained to the year 2007, he was not eligible for consideration. The respondents also relied on the judgment of the

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Gouri Devi, Civil Appeal No.6910/2021 dated 18th November, 2021 to contend that the applicant was not entitled to compassionate appointment on account of delay and laches.

11. In the rejoinder, the applicant submitted that the deceased employee had nominated Durgabai (his second wife) and her four children, including the applicant, as beneficiaries in his pension form dated 10th November, 1996, which was executed 11 years prior to his death. This nomination leads to the legitimate expectation of the applicant and demonstrated that the deceased himself considered this branch of the family to be his legal beneficiaries.

12. It was further submitted that although the applicant was found suitable for appointment, the process came to a halt due to the civil disputes relating to succession and legal heirship. It was argued that the respondents cannot invoke this fact as a permanent disqualification for compassionate appointment of the applicant, as this would be unreasonable and contrary to the principles of

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi fairness. It was submitted that the judgments rendered in the succession and heirship only regulated the distribution of the estate and did not determine who constituted the dependents of the deceased employee for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

13. It was also argued that the Railway Board instructions of 1992 and subsequent clarification of 2014, on which the respondents relied to deny the applicant's claim have been overruled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. V.R. Tripathi (supra), which was subsequently accepted and notified by RBE No. 218/2019 but with prospective effect. It was argued that the judgment in Union of India Vs. V.R. Tripathi (supra) 11th December, 2018, declared that policies excluding children from second marriages were unconstitutional, the said declaration would apply retrospectively to all such pending and decided claims involving similar discrimination.

14. It was further argued that the right of the applicant under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Article 14 of the Constitution existed from the date of his birth and could not be

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi denied merely by stating that RBE No.218/2019 required a prospective application of the same.

15. It was submitted that nothing had been concealed, as alleged by the respondents. The claim was made on the basis of the nomination recorded in the service records by the deceased employee. Even otherwise, at the time of death of the deceased employee, the applicant was a minor and could not be faulted for not disclosing the relevant facts. It was further submitted that, once he attained majority and pursued his claim, all details of family, disputes, etc., were disclosed to the respondents.

16. It was also argued that all relevant facts had been disclosed by the applicant, particularly in view of the fact that it was not relevant whether the applicant was born from the first marriage or the unrecognized second marriage, as he was entitled to consideration for the benefit in either case.

17. As regards the delay in filing the OA and the principle of immediacy governing compassionate appointment, it was submitted that the issue had to be considered in the context of each

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi case. It was argued that the applicant could not be penalized for delays caused by administrative inertia or changes in the legal position. It was further submitted that the delay was largely attributable to the civil disputes, the changed legal landscape and the issuance of RBE No.218/2019 and subsequent circular of 2021, which shows the government's changing policy stance, and the respondents' own repeated processing and rejections.

18. It was further submitted that the applicant had been diligently pursuing his case since the conclusion of the civil disputes and the subsequent changes in the policies and legal position.

19. It was argued that the judgment in State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., (2025) 5 SCC 712 relied upon to contend that long passage of time was sufficient ground for rejection, itself acknowledged that considerable delay may be a factor, but the authorities must assess who caused the delay and whether there was any improvement in the financial condition of the family during that period. No such exercise had been

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi undertaken by the respondents. With regard to the present financial condition of the family, it was submitted that the same had remained unchanged, despite the passage of time. It was also submitted that the civil disputes, which became a barrier to the conflicting claims were resolved only after the mediation settlement and was not attributable to the applicant. The settlement also demonstrated that the first wife's branch of the family had no objection to the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment.

20. It was argued that the restriction of prospective application made by RBE No.218/2019, while accepting the principle outlined in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.R. Tripathi (supra), violated the applicant's constitutional rights. It was submitted that a subordinate authority (Railway Board) could not restrict or limit the effect of a superior authority’s (Supreme Court’s) pronouncement.

21. It was also argued that the reliance placed on the Judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in M.V.V. Prakash Vs.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (S) No. 16 of 2014, 2014 SCC Online Jhar 1054 to contend that an employer cannot be compelled to provide compassionate appointment contrary to its policy or scheme, predates the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.R. Tripathi (supra). It was further argued that the principle of immediacy could not be applied against the applicant, as he had been diligently pursuing his claim.

22. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings on record.

23. The question that I am required to answer is whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the applicant, being the son of the second wife, was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.

24. The reasons given by the respondents for rejection are based on principles of immediacy, as a period of 13 years had elapsed since the death of the deceased employee. The respondents

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi have also relied upon RBE No. 218/2019 and the earlier circulars to hold that the applicant was ineligible for consideration, being the child from the second marriage and the case being related to before the decision in V.R. Tripathi (supra). It has also been mentioned in the rejection order that the truth had been hidden while making the application. From the reading of the rejection order, it is seen that the hidden truth referred to by the respondents is the applicant being the child from the second marriage. As regards applying the principles of immediacy is concerned, the respondents relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Gouri Devi (supra)

25. I find that the principle of immediacy cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. It is true that 13 years had passed since the death of the deceased employee. However, it has to be kept in mind that the application had been made way back in 2007 itself and the same could not be acted upon, even after issuance of the letter directing the applicant to undergo a medical examination, on account of the disputes between the families of the first wife and

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi the second wife. These disputes lingered on till 2018, when a negotiated settlement was arrived and the consequential judgment was passed by the Court. The claim was thereafter reviewed, but was rejected on various grounds, including the ground of immediacy, which aspect will be visited again later. It is not a case where the applicant made an application only after several years had elapsed since the death of the deceased employee, as was the position in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Gouri Devi (supra) relied upon by the respondents. In the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Gouri Devi (supra), an application was made by the second son after 18 years of the rejection of the application made by the first son. In the cases referred to in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the said judgment, namely, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 and State of J & K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766, the very first application for compassionate appointment themselves were made after delay of 7 years and 4 ½ years, respectively. The facts of the present case are entirely different. The application was

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi made immediately after the death of the deceased employee. It is also not the case here that the claim has been made by a second dependent after the claim of another dependent had been rejected. The said judgment, therefore, does not help the cause of the respondents.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered its judgment in V.R. Tripathi (supra) on 11th December, 2018, holding that a child from the second marriage was entitled to the benefits of compassionate appointment and could not be discriminated against merely on the ground that the marriage is illegitimate, as the child was legitimate and entitled to all benefits. The said decision was accepted by the Railway Board vide RBE No. 218/2019. However, it held that the same would be applied prospectively from the date of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The right of the applicant to be considered arises under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was considered in the judgment in V.R. Tripathi (supra). The Hindu Marriage Act has been in operation much before the judgment in V.R. Tripathi

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

(supra) and, therefore, the rights of the applicant under the said provision existed independently of the subsequent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, once the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides on the issue of law, it is to be held as applicable retroactively unless specifically stated so in the order. Therefore, the decision in the case of V.R. Tripathi (supra) is required to be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the applicant, being a child from the second marriage, was eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment and could not have been held ineligible on that ground, as has been done by the respondents.

27. As regards the non-disclosure of the full facts, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.R. Tripathi (supra), since it is not relevant as to whether the child is from the first marriage or the second marriage, this was not a relevant fact. This could, therefore, not be a reason to reject the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment. At best, the respondents could have considered competing claim, if any.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

However, now that NOC has been provided by the competing claimant, this would not survive.

28. An objection has been raised by the respondent that the rejection was made in 2020/2021 and that the OA was filed in August, 2024. It is, therefore, contended that the OA is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

29. From the facts of the case, it can be seen that the applicant has been diligently pursuing his claim before the authorities. It is also observed that the rejections were during the COVID period, in respect of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 10th February, 2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 had extended the period of limitation in cases where such period expired during the operation of the lockdown. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide in its order dated 10th February 2022 extended the period for filing the cases by three months, i.e., till May 2022. The applicant continued to make representations to various authorities and the same were also taken up and decided

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi by the respondents. Further, the scheme of compassionate appointment being a benevolent provision, it needs to be given a liberal construct. It is also to be considered that legal landscape has been changing and the respondents themselves have changed their stance over the period.

30. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the delay, if any, in filing the OA is required to be condoned. The same is condoned, specially looking to the financial position of the applicant and the changes in the policy and legal regime.

31. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the applicant was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, being a child from the second marriage of the deceased employee, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.R. Tripathi (supra). The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment, and offer him appointment, if he is otherwise eligible.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

32. Since there is a likelihood that the financial circumstances of the family may have changed or improved, although it has been submitted otherwise by the applicant, the respondents would be free to ascertain the present financial condition of the applicant through a Welfare Inspector, if they consider it necessary.

33. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

34. The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.

(Sangam Narain Srivastava)

Member (A)

dm.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi