Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Rejected Merely On Ground Of Delay If Financial Distress Is Established & Delay Is Explained: Andhra Pradesh HC

Background Facts

The employee served as a Gangaman in the Railways. He was medically de-categorised and consequently opted for voluntary retirement. After his retirement, he received a monthly pension along with gratuity and provident fund. Later, his daughter (Petitioner) applied for compassionate appointment. She cited the family's financial distress including her elder brother's mental illness and medical expenses. The family was dependent on her father's pension.

The Divisional Railway Authorities recommended her case. However, the General Manager, East Coast Railway, rejected the application stating it was time-barred as it was submitted more than five years after her father's de-categorisation.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the employee approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the order passed by the authorities. Subsequently, the Railways passed an order wherein it rejected compassionate appointment on grounds of delay. It was also held that the daughter had attained majority before the application was made. The petitioner-daughter filed an application before the CAT, which was dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay.

Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

It was contended by the petitioner that neither she nor her father was aware of the rules governing compassionate appointments, due to which she filed a delayed application. She further emphasized that the family was undergoing financial distress due to medical expenses.

On the other hand, the railway authorities contended that the compassionate appointment was rightly denied since the application was moved after an inordinate delay. It was further submitted that the employee was sanctioned full benefits. It was argued that as per Railway Board policy, an application for compassionate appointment in cases of medical de-categorisation must be submitted within five years from de-categorisation.

Findings of the Court

The case of Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India was relied upon wherein the Supreme Court observed that there should not be any delay in appointment in claims for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, the Supreme Court placed emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants.

Further, in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, the Supreme Court observed that granting compensation after a lapse of a considerable amount of time after the death of the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for compassionate appointment. The judgment in The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others was also relied upon wherein the Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after prolonged delay, as delay dilutes the element of immediacy and indicates that the family has managed to sustain itself through other sources of income.

However, it was noted by the Division Bench that the reason given by the petitioner for not submitting an application to the competent authority at the time of her father's medical de-categorisation was that neither she nor her father was aware of the instructions issued by the Railway Department.

It was further noted that application for compassionate appointment was recommended by the initial authority wherein it had indicated the financial distress of the family. However, the General Manager rejected the application by merely citing delay without considering the financial distress. Relying upon the RBE instructions it was held by the Division Bench that the General manager should do the balanced and objective assessment of the financial and other conditions of the family while considering requests for compassionate appointment.

It was held by the Division Bench that compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay, when the delay occurred due to lack of awareness on the part of the employee and the daughter. Moreover, the financial distress of the family was established. Hence, the petitioner was held entitled to compassionate appointment.

Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside by the Division Bench. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds within three months. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the employee's daughter was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Bora Narayanamma v. Union of India & Others

Case No. : Writ Petition No. 9558 of 2019

Counsel for the Petitioner : Rama Mohan Rao Banda

Counsel for the Respondents : Poluri Prabhakar Rao; Deputy Solicitor General Of India