Village Kaliyawas, Thesil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of Railway, New Delhi

Judgment

2. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Railway, New Delhi Chief Security Commissioner, Western Railway Head Quarters, Railway Protection Force, Church Gate, Mumbai

3. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Ratlam ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Chandra Prakash Meena for Mr. Surendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 29/04/2025

1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record.

2. It appears that petitioner’s father namely Sh. Om Prakash Yadav died on 18.09.1986, while in service on the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force (RPF). At the time of death of petitioner’s father, petitioner was minor (only 8 days’ old), however, on attaining the age of majority, he applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 27.06.2008 (Ann.2), but his application has been rejected vide order dated 03.10.2008 (Ann.4), relying upon Clause 2(2.5) of the Standing Order No.82, which governs the procedure for appointment on compassionate [2025:RJ-JP:18105] (2 of 4) [CW-21754/2013] grounds in RPF/ RPSF, Ministry of Railways, Government of India. A copy of Standing Order No. 82 has been enclosed with the reply as Ann. R/1, of which Clause 2(2.5) reads as under:- “2(2.5) If the widow of the deceased employee remarries, neither she nor his ward will be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, a widow appointed on compassionate grounds will be allowed to continue in service even after remarriage.”

3. It appears that after rejection of application of petitioner for compassionate appointment vide order dated 03.10.2008, petitioner has preferred this writ petition on 05.12.2013 i.e. after a delay of about more than five years.

4. Counsel for respondents drew the attention of this Court to the document dated 17.05.2008 enclosed with the reply as Ann. R/2, certifying that the widow of deceased employee- Shri Om Prakash Yadav, namely Smt. Reshmi Devi has entered into re- marriage. The document dated 17.05.2008 (Ann. R/2) has neither been countered/ disputed by the counsel for petitioner nor any rejoinder has been filed, denying the factum of re-marriage by widow of deceased employee i.e. petitioner’s mother.

5. That apart, the legal proposition in respect of object and purpose of granting appointment on compassionate ground is no more res integra and in this regard, oft-quoted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138] can be referred herein and the principles, enunciated therein, have been consistently followed in series of judgments, including in the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653]. For ready reference, in order to highlight the object and purpose [2025:RJ-JP:18105] (3 of 4) [CW-21754/2013] of granting compassionate appointment, Para No.2 of the judgment delivered in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (Supra) is being reproduced hereunder:- “2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and met-it. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus 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 the 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. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families [2025:RJ-JP:18105] (4 of 4) [CW-21754/2013] which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the Change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” (emphasis supplied)

6. In case at hand, application for compassionate appointment filed by petitioner, has been rejected vide order dated 03.10.2008, relying upon Clause 2(2.5) of the Standing Order No.82 issued by Ministry of Railways. Clause 2(2.5) of the Standing Order No.82, indeed, is not under challenge in the writ petition. Secondly, factum of re-marriage by widow of deceased employee has not been refuted. Thirdly, writ petition itself preferred by petitioner after a delay of five years, after rejection of his application for compassionate appointment. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances obtaining herein, denial of compassionate appointment to petitioner may not be termed contrary to the object and purpose for grant of compassionate appointment.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, rejecting the application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

9. As a result, instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sachin/27 (SUDESH BANSAL),J