Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With HC Judgment Allowing Railway Compassionate Appointment To Grandson

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's direction to the Railway authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the grandson of a deceased railway employee.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a plea filed by the Union of India and Railways against the High Court's direction to the Railways to consider the Respondent's case for a compassionate appointment.

The case concerned Respondent-Jitendra Verma, whose grandfather died in 2002 and father died in 2006. He was thereafter brought up by his grandmother, Chhama Bai, who was working as Helper-II/Khalsi in the Bhopal Division of West Central Railway. She died in harness on June 19, 2016.

Respondent had also been recorded as the legal heir/nominee in Chhama Bai's service records in 2007. He subsequently obtained a succession certificate from the civil court, although the Railway authorities did not accept it for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

The claimant asserted that he was the adopted son of Chhama Bai. The Railway disputed the validity of the adoption and subsequently rejected his claim, also taking the position that there was no provision for compassionate appointment to a grandson.

The High Court, however, examined Clause III of the Railway policy governing compassionate appointments. The clause makes the son, daughter, widow or widower of a deceased employee eligible and further provides that compassionate appointment “may also be extended to a near relative/adopted son/daughter”, subject to prescribed conditions.

The High Court held that the Tribunal had correctly directed reconsideration of Respondent's claim under this provision. Importantly, the High Court observed that even if Respondent was not treated as the legally adopted son of Chhama Bai, the authorities could not disregard his status as the only near relative of the deceased employee.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Union and Railway moved to the Supreme Court, which ultimately refused to interfere with the impugned order.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Singh, Adv. Ms. Disha Thakkar, Adv. Mr. Noor Rampal, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar- 2986, AOR Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manan Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Swami, Adv. Mr. Nihal Ahmad- 3592, AOR Mr. Prakhar Singh Sengar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv.