SURENDRA SHITALPRASAD KAITHWAS vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

ORDER

The Original Application has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay. Since there is a delay of nearly 14 months, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

2. It is the case of the applicant that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected his case for grant of compassionate appointment without application of mind and in contravention of the rules and the reasons provided by the respondents. It is further submitted that the applicant’s mother, i.e., Laxmibai Shitalprasad Kaithwas, had already filed an OA bearing Diary No.1690/2022, which was later on withdrawn with the liberty to file a fresh OA. Subsequently, the applicant’s mother expired on 14th June, 2023. It is submitted that the withdrawal of the earlier OA and the delay on the part of the applicant were not intentional, as he was under emotional distress on account of the demise of his mother, which resulted in the delay. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for condoning the delay.

3 OA No.1082/2024

3. The respondents have not filed reply to the application for condonation of delay.

4. I have considered the reasons given in the MA. While considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is required to be taken, and the sufficiency of the cause is material rather than the length of the delay. For the reason mentioned in the MA and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the MA is allowed. On merits

5. The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: “8.a. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 18.08.2021 and 25.10.2021 with all consequential benefits.

8. b. This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to hold and declare that Applicant is entitled to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment and accordingly direct the Respondents to consider the case of Applicant for grant of compassionate appointment with all consequential benefits.

8. c. Costs of the Applicant be provided for.

4 OA No.1082/2024

8. d. Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed”.

6. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant’s brother, Late Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas, was working as Sr. Khalasi (Electrical) under SSE Akot in the office of Respondent No. 2. He was the sole breadwinner of the family consisting of his mother and three brothers. Late Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas had himself been appointed on compassionate grounds on the death of his father, Shitalprasad Kaithwas. 6.2

It is further submitted that, while working at Akot Railway Station on 16th February, 2017, Late Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas, along with his Wireman Incharge, suffered an electric shock and expired while on duty. He left behind the applicant and two others as his dependents. On account of the sudden demise of Late Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas, the family was left in a destitute condition without any source of income. It is submitted that Late Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas had been appointed on compassionate grounds, as the entire family was in a destitute

5 OA No.1082/2024

condition and dependent upon him. According to the applicant, this is evident from the fact that he had been offered appointment on compassionate grounds, as the entire family was dependent upon him. 6.3

It is the case of the applicant that his mother immediately submitted an application dated 08th May, 2017 (Annexure A-4), requesting the respondents to consider the applicant’s case for grant of compassionate appointment. The said application was followed by various representations. Pursuant thereto, the respondents, vide letter dated 24th May, 2017 (Annexure A-5), advised the applicant to attend the office on any working day along with all relevant documents pertaining to his appointment on compassionate grounds, for verification and further processing of his case. Pursuant to the said letter, the applicant immediately visited the office of the respondents and after verification of the documents, the respondents, vide letter dated 14th June, 2017 (Annexure A-6), intimated the applicant that he did not possess the prescribed educational qualification i.e.,

6 OA No.1082/2024

10th Pass or ITI or equivalent, for recruitment in the Railways. He was further advised to submit his application for appointment on compassionate grounds after acquiring the said qualification within a period of five years. 6.4

It is further contended that, as soon as the applicant, Shri Surendra Shitalprasad Kaithwas, acquired the prescribed qualification, the same was immediately conveyed and furnished to the respondents vide letter dated 25th June, 2018 (Annexure A- 7). On the very same date, the respondents, vide letter dated 25th June, 2018 (Annexure A-8), informed the applicant that, as per the extant rules, the dependents of an unmarried railway employee dying in harness may be considered for compassionate appointment, subject to the condition that the candidate proposed for appointment is shown as dependent upon the ex-employee on the basis of documents such as inclusion/declaration of names in the past or in the ration card, etc. The respondents further advised the applicant to submit the necessary documents to establish dependency for further necessary action.

7 OA No.1082/2024

6.5

It is submitted that, accordingly, the applicant submitted the necessary documents, including the legal heir certificate, affidavit and copy of the ration card vide letter dated 05th July, 2018 (Annexure A-9). However, vide letter dated 03rd May, 2019 (Annexure A-10), the respondents, despite the applicant having submitted the required documents sought by them, stated that the applicant had not submitted the documents establishing dependency and, therefore, the issue of dependency had not been finalized. The respondents further advised the applicant to submit the said documents establishing dependency and also called upon him to furnish an explanation regarding the alleged concealment of the marriage of Applicant No. 2 (applicant). 6.6

It is further submitted that, upon receipt of the said letter, the applicant’s mother, vide letter dated 28th May, 2019 (Annexure A-11), once again furnished the necessary documents relating to dependency and further pointed out that Applicant No. 2 (applicant) was unmarried. Thereafter, the respondents,

8 OA No.1082/2024

vide letter dated 18th August, 2021 (Annexure A-1), rejected the applicant’s claim for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that one appointment on compassionate grounds had already been availed by the family of the original railway employee, i.e., Shitalprasad Kaithwas. It was further stated that it had not been established that Late Sachin Prasad’s elder brother, i.e., the applicant, was dependent upon him. Accordingly, the respondents concluded that appointment on compassionate grounds could not be extended to the applicant. 6.7

Aggrieved by the said decision of the respondents, the applicant was constrained to approach this Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievance. Hence, the present Original Application.

7. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. It is submitted that Shri Shital Prasad Kaithwas, father of applicant and the deceased employee, was working as Tech-III (Painter) under SSE/P. Way/Akot and expired on 14th September, 2012 while in service. He left behind his

9 OA No.1082/2024

wife, two married sons, one married daughter and two unmarried sons. The applicant’s mother, Smt. Laxmibai, was receving family pension and two brothers of late Shri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas were married at the relevant time. It is, therefore, contended that Shri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas cannot be construed to have the sole breadwinner of the family. 7.2

It is further submitted that the applicant’s mother, Smt. Laxmibai, had opted for compassionate appointment in favour of her younger son, Shri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas. On her request, the competent authority, i.e., DRM/NED, approved compassionate grounds appointment in his favour and he was appointed as KHP in the Electrical Department on 19th February, 2014 on compassionate grounds against the demise of his father. 7.3

It is further submitted that Shri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas, younger brother of applicant, while working as Sr.Khalasi/Electrical/Akot expired on 16th February, 2017 while unmarried. The claim regarding his death on duty was not established by the Investigating Committee. In the family

10 OA No.1082/2024

composition certificate submitted by him to the Railway Administration, only the name of his mother, Smt. Laxmibai, was mentioned as a dependent relative. Thus, according to the respondents, his three brothers were not dependent upon him. 7.4

It is further submitted that Shri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas had been appointed on compassionate grounds against the demise of his father on the request of his mother. At the time of his appointment, the applicant, being his elder brother, was married. A copy of the family declaration has been enclosed as Annexure-R-1. On the demise of employee, the settlement dues admissible in the case were paid to his mother Smt. Laxmibai, as under: S. No. Particulars Amount

Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity ₹1,22,928/-

Group Ins. Scheme ₹ 30598/-

Encashment of Leave ₹ 24586/-

Additionally, Smt. Laxmibai was receiving family pension of ₹10,590/- along with Dearness Relief consequent upon the demise of her husband. She subsequently expired on 14th

11 OA No.1082/2024

June, 2023. Copies of the payment of settlement dues have been enclosed as Annexure-R-2. 7.5

It is further submitted that, after the demise of Shri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas, his mother, Smt. Laxmibai, vide representation dated 08th May, 2017, requested compassionate appointment in favour of her second elder son, Shri Surendra Shital Prasad Kaithwas. Vide letter dated 24th May, 2017, she was advised to attend the office along with all relevant documents pertaining to her son for verification and further processing of the case. Thereafter, vide letter dated 14th June, 2017, Smt. Laxmibai was advised to submit the application after her son acquired the prescribed educational qualification, as he did not possess the requisite qualification of 10th Pass or equivalent for recruitment in the Railways. 7.6

The respondents have relied upon the guidelines contained in Railway Board's letter No.E(NG)-II/2014/RC- 1/SCR/5 dated 08th July, 2014 (RBE No.70/2014), which stipulate that:

12 OA No.1082/2024

"the dependent of an unmarried male/unmarried female Railway employee dying in harness/retiring on medical grounds, may be considered for compassionate appointment by the Railway at its own level, subject to the condition that the candidate proposed for appointment is shown as dependent on ex-employee basis of documents such inclusion/declaration of names in the pass or Ration cards etc". 7.7

Accordingly, in supersession of the office letter dated 14th June, 2017, Smt. Laxmibai was advised vide office letter dated 06th April, 2018, to submit the necessary documents establishing the dependency of her son, Shri Surendra Shitalprasad Kaithwas, upon the deceased employee, Shri Sachin Prasad Kaithwas, Ex. Sr. Khalasi/Electrical/Akot. 7.8

It is submitted that, after acquiring the 10th Standard qualification, Smt. Laxmibai, vide representation dated 25th June, 2018, submitted the 10th Pass mark sheet, PAN card and other documents and requested compassionate appointment in favour of

13 OA No.1082/2024

her second elder son, Shri Surendra Shital Prasad Kaithwas. Since the necessary documents establishing his dependency upon the deceased employee had not been submitted, she was again advised vide office letter dated 25th June, 2018 to furnish the requisite documents. 7.9

It is further submitted that Smt. Laxmibai, vide representation dated 05th July, 2018, submitted the 10th Pass mark sheet of her son, the ration card of her husband issued on 02nd May, 2000, legal heir certificate and other documents. The case was thereafter investigated through the Staff and Welfare Inspector. However, the issue regarding the dependency of the candidate proposed for compassionate appointment upon the deceased employee was not finalized. Accordingly, vide office letter dated 03rd May, 2019, she was again advised to submit the relevant documents establishing dependency and also to furnish an explanation regarding the alleged concealment of the marital status of her son.

14 OA No.1082/2024

7.10 It is submitted that the applicant, being the elder brother of the ex-employee, was aged 38 years at the time of submission of the application dated 25th June, 2018. During the investigation of the compassionate appointment case, it was revealed that the applicant was married. It was further found that the applicant, Shri Surendra Shital Prasad Kaithwas, and his younger brother, Shri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas, the deceased employee, were residing separately, as their residential addresses mentioned in their respective Aadhaar Cards were different. Copies of the Aadhaar Cards have been enclosed as Annexure-R-3. 7.11 It is contended that the applicant’s mother, vide representation dated 28th May, 2019, did not bring forth any new facts to establish the dependency of the candidate proposed for compassionate appointment upon the deceased employee. The respondents state that the following Railway Board instructions were taken into consideration while examining the case:

(a) Railway Board vide letter dated 28th February, 1995 circulated the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04th May, 1994 in

15 OA No.1082/2024

the cases of Sri. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs State of Haryana & others and Anil Malik Vs State of Haryana & Others, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The government or public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.

(b) Railway Board vide RBE No.03/2009 have reiterated that at the time of considering such requests for compassionate appointments, the Competent Authority should satisfy himself/herself on the basis of a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family that the grounds for compassionate appointment in each such case is justified, having regard to the

16 OA No.1082/2024

number of dependants, assets and liabilities left by the Railway employee, income of any earning member of the family, as also his liability.

(c) Railway Board vide RBE No.70/2014 reiterated that the dependent of an unmarried male/unmarried female Railway employee dying in harness/retiring on medical grounds, may be considered for compassionate appointment by the Railway at its own level, subject to the condition that the candidate proposed for appointment is shown as dependent on the ex-employee on basis of documents such as inclusion/declaration of names in the pass or Ration cards etc.

In light of aforesaid instructions, the case was examined by the competent authority, i.e., DRM/NED and the request for compassionate appointment was rejected with following verbatim order:

17 OA No.1082/2024

i) In this case, one appointment of CG has already been availed by the family of the original railway employee viz. late Shital Prasad Hiralal Kaithwas.

ii) The CGA was availed by late Sachin Prasad Kaithwas who was appointed as Khalasi Elect/Akot.

iii) Unfortunately, he too expired on 16th February, 2017 and his widow mother has been claiming CGA in favour of his elder brother Shri Surendra Shital Prasad Kaithwas.

iv) However, since it has not been established that late Sachin Prasad's elder brother was dependent on him, I do not find any reason to accept the claim for CGA.

v) Hence, due to lack of any established, conclusive and irrefutable evidence (even circumstantial) dependency, the claim for CGA is rejected. Regarding 7.12 The said decision was communicated to Shri Surendra Shitalprasad Kaithwas vide office letter dated 18th August, 2021. A

18 OA No.1082/2024

reply in this regard was also sent to Smt. Laxmibai from HQrs/SC vide letter dated 25th October, 2021. (Annexure-R-4). 7.13 It is further submitted that the name of the applicant, Shri Surendra Shitalprasad Kaithwas, was not mentioned in the family composition certificate submitted by the deceased employee, Shri Sachin Prasad Kaithwas, to the Railway Administration. The applicant was the elder brother of the ex- employee and was aged 38 years at the time of submission of the application dated 25th June, 2018. As per the investigation conducted by the Staff and Welfare Inspector in the compassionate appointment case of Shri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas, the applicant was married. Further, the residential addresses of the applicant and his deceased brother were different as per their respective Aadhaar Cards. The respondents, therefore, contend that both were residing separately and that the dependency of the applicant upon his younger brother, Late Shri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas, was not established.

19 OA No.1082/2024

7.14 In view of the aforesaid submissions, the official respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and material placed on record.

9. The deceased employee, Shri Sachin, was the brother of the applicant and was unmarried at the time of his death. The deceased employee, Shri Sachin, was himself a compassionate appointee having been appointed after the death of his father. After the death of Shri Sachin, applicant’s mother submitted an application on 08th May, 2017 seeking compassionate appointment of her son, i.e., the applicant. Vide letter dated 14th June, 2017, the respondents informed her that Shri Surendra Shitalprasad Kaithwas (the applicant) did not possess the prescribed educational qualification of 10th pass or ITI or equivalent for recruitment in the Railways in PB-1 and advised her to submit the application for appointment on compassionate grounds after the

20 OA No.1082/2024

applicant acquired the requisite minimum qualification within five years. On 25th June, 2018, an application was submitted after the applicant had acquired the requisite qualification. On the same date, the applicant’s mother was informed by the respondents that compassionate appointment could be granted subject to the condition that the candidate proposed for appointment was shown to be dependent on the ex-employee on the basis of documents such as inclusion/declaration of names in the past records or ration card, etc. She was advised to submit necessary documents to show the dependency of the applicant on the deceased employee. On 05th July, 2018, the legal heir certificate, a photocopy of ration card of the father and an affidavit were submitted to the respondents. On 03rd May, 2019, she was informed that no documents had been submitted to show dependency of the applicant on the deceased employee. She was also required to explain why the applicant’s marital status had been concealed. The details were once again submitted to the respondents on 28th May, 2019. The claim of the

21 OA No.1082/2024

applicant was rejected vide letter dated 25th October, 2021. The said letter is reproduced below for ready reference:

“Date: 25.10.2021

Sub: Appointment on Compassionate Ground Sri Surendra Shitalprasad Kaithuwas, Brother/o Late Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas Ex. Sr. Khalasi under SSE/Elec/Alok, regarding Appointment on Compassionate Grounds.

Ref: JDE (Rep)/ RB's.O.No.2021/E(Rep)1/ 103(18)40, dated 11.10.2021.

Reference to the letter cited, the following information is furnished:

a) Consequent upon demise of the Sri Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas on 16.02.2017, while in service leaving behind his Widow mother, consequent on death of the ex-employee his widow mother Smt. Laxmi Bai requested for CGA in favour of her elder son Sri. Surendra Shitalprasad Kaithwas who possess the educational qualification of SSC.

b) To enquire the case welfare inspector was deputed for dependency proof.

c) After the thorough examination of S&WI report, DRM/NED has regretted due to following reasons:

i. the case as already one CG appointment has already been availed by the family on death of his father Late Shital Prasad Hiralal Kaithwas.

i. Unfortunately late Sachin Shitalprasad Kaithwas was expired on 16.02.2017

22 OA No.1082/2024

iii. Since it has not been established that Sachin Shitalprasad 's elder brother was dependent on him.

iv. due to lack of any established, conclusive and irrefutable evidence regarding dependency the claim for CGA is rejected.

This for kind information.”

10. It is the contention of the applicant that he is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, being the brother of an unmarried deceased employee. The reason given for rejection is that he failed to substantiate his dependency on the deceased employee. It was submitted that he had given an affidavit stating that he was dependent on the deceased employee. The succession certificate as well as the ration card had also been submitted to the respondents. It was argued that past records, the ration card, etc., are enablers and not restrictive requirements for establishing dependency.

11. Per contra, the respondents contend that the deceased employee had been appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of the applicant’s father and that only one person from the family could be granted such an appointment. It

23 OA No.1082/2024

is further submitted that a succession certificate does not decide dependency and cannot, by itself, from the basis for granting compassionate appointment, as such appointment is not a matter of inheritance or succession to property.

12. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpur Vs. State of Haryana and others, JT 1994(3) S.C. 525, learned counsel for the respondents submits that compassionate ground appointment is granted to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial distress. It is further contended that the applicant was also asked to submit explanation regarding concealing of his marital status. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that the applicant had submitted an affidavit stating that he was unmarried, whereas the report of the Welfare Inspector prepared at the time of his father’s death had recorded that the applicant was married. The respondents have also pointed out that the applicant was 38 years of age at the time submission of the application. As regards dependency, it is submitted that the same was required to be established through

24 OA No.1082/2024

documents such as inclusion/declaration in the past records or ration card etc. It is further contended that the Aadhaar cards of the deceased employee and the applicant show different addresses, since both the deceased employee and the applicant were residing separately and their names were not included in the past orders or ration card. In the absence of such documentary evidence, according to the respondents, the applicant’s dependency on the deceased employee was not established and, therefore, his claim has been rightly rejected.

13. 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.

14. The first reason mentioned for rejection is that only one appointment is to be allowed in the family. While considering this rule, the respondents, based on their interpretation, started with the mindset that the applicant would be the second person in the family to be appointed on compassionate grounds. Such an

25 OA No.1082/2024

interpretation is not sustainable. The deceased employee, Shri Sachin, had been appointed on compassionate grounds on the death of his father. Once having been appointed, he became an employee in his own right and, in the unfortunate event of his passing away, his dependents would be entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. It is not as if the appointment has been sought by two separate persons on account of the same death. The rule, which is being interpreted by the authorities, imposes a bar only for the limited purpose of ensuring that two dependents are not appointed on account of the death of one employee. Here the appointment is being sought on account of the death of the brother, which is an entirely different event from the death of the father. This, therefore, cannot be a ground for rejection.

15. It is an admitted position that the deceased employee, namely, the applicant’s brother, was unmarried at the time of his death. The family for the purpose of compassionate ground appointment, has been defined vide DoPT OM dated 02nd August,

26 OA No.1082/2024

2022. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below: "…..Note I Dependent Family Member" means:

(a) spouse; or

(b) son (including adopted son); or

(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or (d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant or (e) member of the Armed Forces referred to in (A) or (B) of this para, -- who was wholly dependent on the Government servant/ member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be”.

16. The brother is considered as a family member in the case of the unmarried Government servant. No distinction has been made with respect to the martial status of the dependent family member. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents that no explanation was forthcoming as to the concealment of the martial status of the applicant does not help their cause as it is not material to the determination of his eligibility. Insisting on documents or merely relying on documents to establish dependency would not be the correct approach to determining

27 OA No.1082/2024

dependency, as even RBE No. 70 of 2014 mentions these documents as facilitators and specifically states that they are not intended to be restrictive. I also find that as per the prescribed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the Welfare Inspector is required to submit a report whenever an application for compassionate appointment is made. Although, reference has been made to such a report when the father had expired and Sachin (now deceased employee) was appointed. However, no such report has been placed on record when considering the case of the applicant. This report could have thrown some light on the dependency/earnings of the applicant so as to arrive at a definitive conclusion about dependency.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the matter is remanded to the respondents for reconsideration of the applicant’s claim, particularly with regard to the question of his dependency on the deceased employee. While doing so, the respondents shall take into consideration the observations recorded by the Welfare Inspector (CWI) in case, a report has been submitted. In case, the

28 OA No.1082/2024

CWI was not deputed, he should be now deputed to determine the dependency/earnings/financial status of the applicant and then take a fresh decision on his claim, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances regarding dependency.

18. The respondents will approach the report with an open mind and without being biased that the deceased employee himself was a compassionate appointee, as such view is not permissible.

19. The respondents have also pointed out that the applicant was 38 years of age at the time of submission of his application. In this regard, I find that the applicable rules governing compassionate appointment provide for relaxation of the upper age limit wherever considered necessary. The respondents shall, therefore, also consider the question of age relaxation, in accordance with the applicable rules, while reconsidering the applicant’s claim.

29 OA No.1082/2024

20. In view of the above, the Original Application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.

(Sangam Narain Srivastava)

Member (A)

dm