Allahabad High Court
MANSHA DEVIversusUNION OF INDIA AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petitioner failed to prove dependency on her deceased father and therefore was not entitled to a compassionate appointment, so the Tribunal's dismissal was upheld.
Summary
The petitioner, Mansha Devi, sought a compassionate appointment in the Eastern Central Railway after her father, a post trackman, died in 2019. The Central Administrative Tribunal had earlier set aside a rejection of her claim and directed her to prove dependency on her father at the time of his death. She submitted a representation lacking documentary proof of such dependency, and the respondents rejected it, leading the Tribunal to dismiss her application. The petitioner challenged this dismissal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in finding no dependency. The High Court examined the evidence, found no cogent proof of dependency, reiterated that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a married daughter is eligible for a compassionate appointment under the applicable rules.
- Whether the petitioner established dependency on her deceased father at the time of his death.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the original application for lack of proof of dependency.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- dependency
- married daughter
- railway employment
- administrative law
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Rule 2(c)(iii)
- equality
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5234 of 2026
Mansha Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and 6 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwini Kumar, Radheshyam, Ganesh
Shankar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Shiv Kumar Pal, Dy.S.G.I.
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Ganesh Shankar Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Shri
Ashwini Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Shiv Kumar Pal,
learned Deputy S.G.I. for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
19.12.2025, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad ('the Tribunal') has dismissed Original Application No.
963 of 2022 ('O.A.') filed by the petitioner and has not interfered with the
order dated 06.07.2022, whereby the Competent Authority had disposed
of petitioner’s representation submitted in furtherance of an earlier order
passed by the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Yogendra Ram was
working as a Post Trackman in the office of Senior Section Engineer, East
Central Railway, Buxar. He died in harness on 09.05.2019. The
petitioner's mother and sister submitted applications before the
respondents for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who
was the elder married daughter of the deceased.
4. The application moved initially was rejected on 01.12.2021 on the
ground that the deceased employee had less than one year of service
remaining and that compassionate appointments for married daughter
were rare. The said order was set aside by the Tribunal by order dated
27.05.2022 passed in O.A. No. 486 of 2022 and the matter was remitted
to the respondents for re-consideration.
WRIA No. 5234 of 2026
2
5. In furtherance of the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner
submitted a fresh representation, which was rejected by order dated
06.07.2022, against which the O.A. giving rise to the present writ petition
was filed with a further prayer to issue appointment letter in favour of the
petitioner for any suitable post at any suitable place in Eastern Central
Railway.
6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the O.A.
observing that though a married daughter is eligible for compassionate
appointment, it is necessary to establish her dependency upon the father at
the time of his death. Placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and
others: AIR 2023 SC 1467, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that
dependency at the time of death for immediate financial assistance to the
dependent of the deceased employee is utmost consideration for grant of
compassionate appointment, which is not a vested right and that there is
nothing on record to establish dependency of the petitioner upon the
deceased employee, i.e. her father.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that once the
Tribunal had set aside the earlier order rejecting the petitioner's claim and
issued a direction to the respondents to consider the cause of the
petitioner, rejection of her claim was not justified and the Tribunal has
also erred in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner was not dependent
on her father. It is further submitted that the petitioner and her family is
somehow managing their life with great financial hardships and,
therefore, compassionate appointment should have been offered to her.
8. Per contra, learned Deputy S.G.I. submits that the earlier order passed
by the respondents was set aside by the Tribunal in view of the order
dated 04.12.2015 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015
(Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein word
'unmarried' in Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Rules was struck down, however,
direction was issued to the petitioner to prove her dependency at the time
of death of her father. Submission is that once the petitioner failed to
establish dependency, as directed by the Tribunal, rejection of her
representation did not suffer from any infirmity and, consequently, the
WRIA No. 5234 of 2026
3
Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A.
9. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
10. The earlier round of litigation ended in terms of directions issued by
the Tribunal in O.A. No. 486 of 2022 filed by the petitioner. The
operative portion of the order passed therein reads as under:-
"It is seen that the married daughter cannot be excluded from
consideration of the compassionate appointment. However, in the light
of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, it
is made clear that it is incumbent upon the married daughter to prove
her dependency at the time of the death of the deceased employee for
her case to be considered for compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, this Original Application is disposed of with a direction
to the applicant that the she shall submit her application for
consideration of compassionate appointment annexing the documents
to prove her dependency at the time of death of her father in 2019
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this Order. The respondents shall consider the same as and when the
meeting for consideration of cases for compassionate appointment is held
in further and the outcome of the said meeting shall be communicated to
the applicant within tow weeks thereafter.
With the above directions, the instant Original Application No. 486 of
2022 is disposed of and the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 is quashed."
11. A bare perusal of the above directions indicates that though the
entitlement of a married daughter qua compassionate appointment was
accepted by the Tribunal, specific observations were made that the
married daughter has to prove her dependency at the time of death of the
deceased employee for consideration of her case for compassionate
appointment. The O.A. was disposed of with clear direction to the
petitioner to submit her application annexing therewith documents to
prove her dependency at the time of death of her father in 2019.
12. The petitioner, in furtherance of the order of the Tribunal, filed
representation dated 07.06.2022 annexing therewith affidavit of her sister
Mamta Kumari, educational certificate of the petitioner and her caste
certificate. Except this, no other document appears to have been filed.
13. The respondent, while disposing of the representation, has clearly
observed that the petitioner has not submitted any document to prove her
WRIA No. 5234 of 2026
4
dependency on the ex-employee and that her father expired on 09.05.2019
at which time the petitioner was already married, who cannot be said to be
the bread winner of the family. Further observations were made that all
the settlement dues were paid to the widow of the ex-employee and
family pension was being drawn by the widow of the deceased, who had
since expired.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however referred to certain
affidavits and other application allegedly filed before the competent
authority and a perusal of the same would indicate that except consenting
to the proposed appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground,
her sister Mamta Kumari and her mother had not stated anything
substantial, though it was stated that the petitioner's husband was
unemployed and was dependent upon the widow of the deceased
employee. As far as the petitioner is concerned, a vague averment was
made in the application that her financial condition was not sound and,
even after marriage, she had been residing with her parents and that her
sister Mamta Kumari had decided not to take any share in the ancestral
property left behind by her father (deceased employee).
15. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner has utterly failed to
substantiate by any cogent, reliable or sufficient evidence to establish
before the respondents that she, despite having been married even prior to
death of her father, has ever remained dependent upon her father and,
therefore, this Court does not find any error in the view taken by the
Department or by the Tribunal in not accepting her claim for
compassionate appointment.
16. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a
right, to be granted by way of exception to the general rule of equality in
matters of employment. The purpose to give such appointment is to tied
over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased
due to death of bread-earner of the family and to mitigate the loss of
earning. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial
crisis. Reference in this regard can be made to Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs.
State of Haryana and others : (1994) 4 SCC 138, Director of
Education (Secondary) and another vs. Pushpendra Kumar and
WRIA No. 5234 of 2026
5
others : (1998) 5 SCC 192, General Manager (D. and P.B.) and others
vs. Kunti Tiwary and another : (2004) 7 SCC 271, National
Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another vs. Nanak Chand and
another : AIR 2005 SC 106, Commissioner of Public Instructions and
others vs. K.R. Vishwanth : (2005) 7 SCC 206, State of J & K. and
others vs. Sajid Ahmed Mir : (2006) 5 SCC 766, V. Shivamurthy vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others : (2008) 13 SCC 730, Santosh
Kumar Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2009) 6 SCC
481, Local Administration Department and another vs. M.
Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu : AIR 2011 SC 1880, Union of India
and another vs. Shashank Goswami and another : (2012) 11 SCC 307,
Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow and
others vs. Prabhat Singh : (2013) 1 UPLBEC 357, M.G.B. Gramin
Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh : AIR 2013 SC 3365, Haryana State
Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh : (1997) 8 SCC 85,
Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another : JT 1995 (9) SC 131,
Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar and another :
(1996) 8 SCC 23, Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others : (2000)
7 SCC 192, S.B.I. vs. Anju Jain : (2008) 8 SCC 475, Managing
Director, M.M.T.C. Ltd., New Delhi and another vs. Pramoda Dei
alias Nayak : 1997 (11) SCC 390, S. Mohan vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu and another : 1999 (I) LLJ 539, Punjab Nation Bank and others
vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja : AIR 2004 SC 4155, Union of India vs.
Bhagwan : 1995 (6) SCC 436, State of U.P. and others vs. Paras Nath :
AIR 1998 SC 2612, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Krishna Devi
: JT 2002 (3) SC 485, State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed :
AIR 2006 SC 2743 and M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Anil Badyakar
and others : (2009) 13 SCC 122.
17. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with
the order passed by the Tribunal.
18. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
April 15, 2026
AKShukla/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…