SATISH CHAUDHARY vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY on 6 November 2026

ORDER

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:- “(i)​ To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the order impugned dated 25.05.2019 passed by respondent no.2 alongwith covering letter dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure No.A-1).

(ii) ​ To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider the claim of applicant and offer the applicant on compassionate ground under the dying-in-harness rules, within stipulated period of time which may specified by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) ​ To issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) ​ To award the cost of the application to the applicant.”

2. ​ Brief facts of this case are that the father of the applicant namely Chhote Lal was working as permanent group 'D' employee on the

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./06/2025

post of Safaiwala under the respondents. The father of applicant had married one Smt. Kamla Devi, but having no issue from Smt. Kamla Devi, he married Smt. Shakuntala Devi with the consent of his first wife Smt. Kamla Devi and out of his wedlock with Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the applicant and his younger sisters were born. The father of the applicant died on 26.12.2010 during his service leaving behind two widows namely Smt. Kamla Devi and Smt. Shakuntala Devi and three children including the applicant. After the death of the deceased employee his death-cum-settlement dues were disbursed among the legal heirs by the respondents department and in this regard no dispute remains between the parties. It is pointed out that the applicant is physically handicapped by birth and the same has been certified by the Chief Medical Officer Kanpur while issuing relevant medical certificate in his favour whereby the percentage of disability was determined as about 45% for the applicant. After the death of the sole bread earner of the family, the applicant had submitted an application for grant of appointment under the dying-in-harness rules with the consent of his step mother as well as real mother. After consideration the railway authorities rejected the claim of applicant on the ground that he was born from the second wife of the deceased employee and as such the applicant approached this Tribunal through Original Application No. 199 of 2013 (Satish Chaudhary Vs. U.O.I. & others), in which notices were issued and respondents were asked to file their objection. After exchange of the pleadings the aforesaid original application was finally heard by this Tribunal on 15.02.2019 and the aforesaid original application was allowed in favour of applicant with the following direction - "The question of giving appointment to the son of second wife has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in affirmative, as above and therefore, impugned order dated 18.10.2022 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground under the rules framed for compassionate appointment within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order is received by the respondents. The applicant shall be informed about the outcome

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./06/2025

of this consideration as directed above immediately thereafter. Accordingly O.A. is allowed. No order as to cost."

3. ​ Thereafter, when the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid order, the applicant filed Civil Contempt Application No.180 of 2019 before this Tribunal, the proceedings in which continued till 2022. Filing the compliance affidavit dated 14.06.2022, the respondents placed on record the impugned order dated 25.05.2019 with covering letter dated 30.05.2019, whereby the respondents rejected the claim of applicant on a different ground stating therein that since the applicant does not possess minimum qualification for compassionate appointment in view of the railway board letter dated 21.03.2018, the claim of the applicant has been rejected.

4. ​ I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. ​ Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the order impugned the respondents have categorically stated that in view of the circular No. E(NG)II/2018/RC-1/5 dated 21.03.2018, the applicant is not entitled for appointment as he does not possess the minimum qualification for the same, but they have failed to disclose the minimum qualification for appointment under the dying-in-harness rules. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant’s case belongs to the year of 2010, when his father died and therefore his case ought to have been considered as per the then existing rules and regulations with regard to appointment under the dying-in-harness rules, but in the present case the respondents have wrongly interpreted the circular, applying it retrospectively from the year 2010, when the father of applicant died, while the fact remains that the circular and government orders should be made applicable from the date of issue of the orders and notifications as they cannot be effected retrospectively. Thus, it is argued that in the present case the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the applicant without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./06/2025

6. ​ Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that this Tribunal has already observed in its order/judgment dated 15.02.2019 that the applicant is a legitimate child of the deceased employee who is entitled to seek the entire benefits as provided under the service rules, but the respondents are diluting the case of applicant on one pretext or another, because first time they have rejected the claim of applicant on the sole ground that he is born from the second wife of the deceased employee and when this Tribunal passed the judgment dated 15.02.2019 and directed them to consider the appointment of applicant as fresh then they have passed the present illegal order dated 25.05.2019 with frivolous observation, therefore, order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

7. ​ It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that after the death of the deceased employee the pension was disbursed by the respondents department in favour of the mother of applicant who died on 18.03.2014 and the step mother Smt. Kamla Devi also died on 16.12.2020. After the death of his parents, the applicant became an orphan and had to seek the benefit of family pension under the disability rules and as such he had submitted certain applications in the office of respondents department requesting therein to release of family pension in his favour as per rules. After consideration, the respondents department issued a letter dated 26.07.2023 stating therein that since your claim about disbursement of family pension has been received in the office and after verification it has found that you are 45% disabled and, as such, it has been observed that the disability as well as capacity of livelihood of the applicant may be verified from the concerned officer and then informed to the office for disbursement of family pension in his favour. Since the respondents did not acted upon the direction to verify the disability condition of the applicant, he was was compelled to approach this Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 260/2024 which was heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself vide order/judgment dated 13.03.2024 with specific direction to the competent authority amongst the

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./06/2025

respondents to decide the claim of applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months. In compliance with the aforesaid judgment, the respondents proceeded to pass the order dated 08.05.2024 by which illegally and arbitrarily they rejected the claim of applicant and declined to release the family pension in his favour referring to the para 75(6)(b) of Pension Rules 1993, whereas perusal of entire para 75 of Pension Rule 1993 would go to show that the disabled child of the deceased employee shall be entitled to be receive the family pension after death of the parents. He contended that one hand the respondents state in the order dated 08.05.2024 that the applicant is able to earn his livelihood and on the other hand they are rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds under the dying in harness rules on the frivolous grounds. He further states that it is also established on the face of record that the respondents have recently rejected the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of railway board circular dated 27.07.2017 as well as railway board letter dated 21.03.2018 the effects of which may be given prospectively and not retrospectively, but the respondents have rejected the claim of applicant illegally and arbitrarily, while giving its effect retrospectively, because the claim of the applicant relates to the year of 2010, when his father died leaving behind two widow, two minor daughters and one son i.e. the applicant. Thus, prayer was made to quash the order dated 25.05.2019 passed by respondent no.2 alongwith covering letter dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure No.A-1) in this application and further direct the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider the claim of applicant and offer him appointment on compassionate ground under the dying- in-harness rules, within stipulated period of time.

8. ​ Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the rule framed for compassionate appointment involving 2nd wife and her sons/daughters under Ministry of railways, Railway Board, it is clarified that in cases of those Railway servants who are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, there can only be one legally

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./06/2025

wedded wife/widow as second marriage when spouse is living is void, in views of the section 5(I) read with Section 16 of the Act. If such a railway servant has left sons/daughters, who have been treated as legitimate or deemed to be legitimate under section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, 2nd widow cannot nominate them as bread winner for compassionate ground appointment. It is further argued that during the scrutiny of relevant records it is also revealed that the applicant is Class 8th passed and lacked minimum qualification as per Railway Board guidelines. Railway Board vide letter No.E (NG) II/2017/RR- 1/22 dated 27.7.2017 (RBE No. 73/2017) and E (NG) II/2016/RR-1/12 dated 18.12.2017 (RBE No. 195/2017) clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for compassionate appointment is High School or 10th pass.

9. ​ Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the counter affidavit, contended that the O.A. has been filed fourteen years after the death of the deceased employee. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in a catena of judgements that the object of the compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment as a right.

10. ​ I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.

11. ​ Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.05.2019 reveals that the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was considered by the respondents in compliance with the direction of this Tribunal dated 15.02.2019 passed in O.A./199/2013. The Tribunal had quashed the impugned order dated 18.10.2012 and directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment under the rules within three months. The respondents, however, rejected the case of the applicant stating as follows:- “​ In view of present rules framed for compassionate appointment involving 2nd wife and her sons/daughters under

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./06/2025

Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) letter no. E(NG)II/2018/RC-⅕ dated 21-03-2018 (RBE No.42/2018) as explained above. It is clarified that in cases of those Railway servant who are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, there can only be one legally wedded wife/widow as second marriage when spouse is living is voids, in view of the Section 5 (I) read with Section 11 of the act and therefore if such railway servant has left sons/daughters, who have been treated as legitimate or deemed to be legitimate under section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Neither widow can nominate them as bread winner for CG appointment nor such sons/daughters can claim CG appointment. During the scrutiny of relevant records it also reveals that Sh Satish Choudhary is class 8th passed and lacked of minimum qualification as per Railway Board guidelines. Railway Board vide letter no. E(NG) II/2017/RR-1/12 dated 27.07.2017 (RBE No.73/2017) and E(NG) II/2016/RR-1/12 dated 18.12.2017 (RBE No.195/2017) clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for compassionate appointment is high school or 10th pass. In view of above, present rule framed for compassionate appointment involving 2nd wife and her sons/daughter under Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) letter no. E(NG)II/2018/RC-⅕ dated 21.03.2018 (RBE No.42/2018), minimum qualification for compassionate appointment letter no E(NG) II/2017/RR-1/12 dated 27.07.2017 (RBE No.73/2017) and letter no E(NG) II/2016/RR-1/12 dated 18.12.2017 (RBE No. 195/2017) does not permit compassionate appointment to applicant.”

12. ​ The first of the two grounds taken by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds i.e. the applicant is the son of the 2nd wife is not sustained since while deciding the O.A./199/2013 filed by the applicant, the Tribunal has clearly observed in its order dated 15.02.2019 that “9. The question of giving appointment to the son of second wife has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in affirmative, as above and therefore, impugned order dated 18.10.2012 is quashed and set aside”. Thus, the point of the applicant being the son of the second wife of the deceased employee no longer stands in the way of being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

13. ​ Now, the second ground taken by the respondents is that the applicant did not fulfil the requisite educational qualification as per the Railway Board letters dated 27.07.2017 and 18.12.2017. In this regard, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./06/2025

applicant placed reliance on the order of this Tribunal passed in O.A./1355/2018 (Sawan Singh vs UoI and ors) on 30.09.2026 wherein relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Jal Board v. Nirmala Devi, Civil Appeal No.7047 of 2022, arising out of SLP (C) No.20935 of 2021 decided on 19.10.2022, this Tribunal had passed the following direction:- “11.​ In this regard, the relevant portion of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmala Devi (supra) is reproduced below:- “6.​ When the respondent made an application for compassionate appointment on 23.03.2010, her daughter was not graduate and the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of LDC was graduation. Therefore, the date on which the respondent applied for compassionate appointment, her daughter was not having the requisite qualification for the post of LDC. As per settled position of law, the qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the application for compassionate appointment is considered.”

12. ​ In the present case also, the applicant claims to have submitted his application in the year 2010. The respondents have not disputed that the claim remained pending for a considerable period and was ultimately considered only pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 13.08.2018. Therefore, the applicant cannot be denied consideration of his claim merely on the basis of a subsequent change in the educational qualification, without first examining the rules and instructions applicable on the date of his original application.

13. ​ In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 cannot be sustained insofar as the applicant’s claim has been rejected solely by applying the subsequent educational qualification. The matter therefore requires reconsideration by the competent authority by applying the rules and educational qualification applicable on the date when the applicant submitted his application for compassionate appointment.

14. ​ Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.11.2018 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment in accordance with the rules and instructions applicable on the date of his original application, after verifying the date and contents of the application submitted by him in the year 2010 and educational qualification prescribed at that time. The competent authority shall pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./06/2025

this order. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs stand disposed of.”

14. ​ Therefore, it is also not disputed that the qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the application for compassionate appointment is considered. The applicant in this case applied for compassionate appointment on 10.09.2012. Thereafter, the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the respondents thereon was quashed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 15.02.2019 passed in O.A./199/2013. In compliance with this Tribunal’s order, the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment was reconsidered by the respondents and rejected relying on Railway Board’s letter pertaining to the year 2017 which is not lawful as the applicant had made his application in the year 2012 and the rules prevailing in the year 2012 on the subject of compassionate appointment would be applicable on the applicant.

15. ​ In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 25.05.2019 passed by respondent no.2 alongwith covering letter dated 30.05.2019 are not sustainable and are, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondents for reconsidering the application of the applicant for compassionate appointment on the basis of the rules/guidelines/criteria prevailing at the time he made his application for the same and also in view of the observations made hereinabove. The aforesaid exercise should be completed by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

16. ​ Thus, the O.A. stands allowed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

( Justice Om Prakash VII) ​ ​ ​ Member (J) Madhu​​ ​

MADHU KUMARI