MANOJ KUMAR YADAV AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 5310 of 2026

Manoj Kumar Yadav and another
                                                           …..Petitioner(s)

                                 Versus

Union of India and 3 others
                                                         …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Dharmendra        Kumar,           Nek
                                     Muhammad Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : A.S.G.I., Shiv Kumar Pal


Chief Justice's Court

            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1.    Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.    This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
01.01.2026 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad (‘Tribunal’) has dismissed Original Application
No.126 of 2025 (‘OA’) filed by the petitioners, thereby not interfering
with the orders dated 06.11.2023, 26.12.2023 and 13.02.2024 passed by
the respondents.

3.    Brief facts of the case are that Raj Bahadur, father of the petitioner
No.1 and husband of the petitioner No.2, was working as a permanent
Trackman with the respondents. He died in harness on 18.09.2023
leaving behind the petitioners and two married daughters. The petitioner
No.2 submitted applications supported by documents, seeking
compassionate appointment for her son, petitioner No.1. The
                                      2
                                                      WRIA No. - 5310 of 2026

applications were rejected by the orders indicated hereinabove on the
ground that the petitioner No.1 was married son aged about 30 years and
not dependent upon the deceased and that the retiral dues and family
pension had already been paid. Assailing the orders of rejection, the OA
giving rise to the present writ petition was filed.

4.    The OA was contested by the respondents by filing counter
affidavit taking a stand that the object of compassionate appointment
was only to relieve immediate financial crises and not to provide
employment as a matter of course. It was indicated in the counter
affidavit that retiral dues of Rs. 13,81,169/- and family pension of
Rs.15,700/- + D.R. (Dearness Relief) had already been received by the
petitioners; the son being married and aged about 34 years at the time of
consideration, the family could not be said to be in penury so as to
provide compassionate appointment.

5.    The Tribunal, after considering the case of the parties, dismissed
the OA taking note of the financial benefits granted in favour of the
family and, by referring to Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986, wherein
the definition of ‘dependent family member’ does not cover a married
son of such age, Tribunal declined to interfere with the orders impugned
in the OA.

6.    Learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions that
merely because petitioner No.1 was aged more than 30 years at the time
of death of his father and that certain financial benefits were being
received by the family, the same could not be a ground to deny
compassionate appointment. Submission is that since, as per the R.B.E.
No.70/2014 dated 08.07.2014, compassionate appointment can be
offered to either spouse or any child {whether son or daughter
(unmarried/married/divorced/widowed)}, the finding of the Tribunal that
married son does not fall within the zone of consideration is erroneous
and, therefore, the reliefs claimed by the petitioners be granted.

7.    Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has made
submissions that Tribunal has carefully considered the aspect as to
                                                  3
                                                                         WRIA No. - 5310 of 2026

whether the family of the deceased was living in penury and once
specific stand was taken by the respondents regarding settlement dues of
Rs. 13,81,169/- having been paid to the widow and making provision for
Rs.15,700/- + DR as monthly family pension, rejection of the claim for
compassionate appointment was proper and, therefore, no interference is
warranted in the order passed by the Tribunal.

8.    We have considered the submissions made and perused the
material available on record.

9.    The facts not being in dispute, the Court has to see as to whether
the respondents were justified in denying compassionate appointment to
the petitioner No.1 for the reasons indicated in the orders impugned in
OA. We may observe that the claim for compassionate appointment was
rejected on 06.11.2023, i.e. by the first order impugned before the
Tribunal whereas by other two orders dated 26.12.2023 and 13.02.2024,
the petitioner No.2 was informed about earlier rejection requiring no
review of the matter.

10.   It would be apt to quote the relevant portion of the order dated
06.11.2023 passed by the respondents, which reads as under:
       “उपरो्ሹ वि षय ए ं सन्द्ቝ में अ गत कराना है विक उपरो्ሹ अनुकम्पा विनयुवि्ሹ के ्ቚकरण को
       स्ቌम अधि#कारी महोदय के स्तर पर वि चार उपरांत यह पाया गया विक स् . कमचारी की
       संतान परिरपक् ए ं आयु 30 ष से अधि#क है तथा आपको समस्त समापन ्ቝुगतान ए ं
       पारिर ारिरक पेंशन ्ቚा्቎ हो रही है ए ं स् . कमचारी ्ቛारा कोई जि4म्मेदारी विन हन हेतु शेष नहीं
       छोड़ी है।
       अतः ्ቦी मनो4 कुमार याद पु्ቔ स् . रा4 बहादरु का अनुकम्पा विनयुवि्ሹ के ्ቚकरण को स्ቌम
       अधि#कारी ्ቛारा वि चारणीय नहीं पाया गया।”


11.   There is no dispute about the fact that the financial benefits to the
aforesaid extent, i.e., settlement dues of Rs. 13,81,169/-, have been paid
to the widow and Rs.15,700/- + DR as monthly family pension is also
being paid. Pleadings contained to that effect in the counter affidavit
filed before the Tribunal were not denied by the petitioners in rejoinder
affidavit nor have the same been disputed before us. We may also
observe that Dearness Relief (D.R.) is computed atleast @ 58% of the
basic pension drawn and, therefore, the family pension being received by
the petitioners is more that Rs.24,000/- per month.
                                     4
                                                    WRIA No. - 5310 of 2026

12.   In view of the above, dismissal of the O.A. by the Tribunal on the
ground that the family cannot be said to be in penury so as to warrant
compassionate appointment, being in consonance with the judicial
precedents, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.
Therefore, irrespective of the aspect as to whether married son aged
more than 30 years does or does not fall within the definition of
‘dependent family member,’ since we have examined the reasoning
assigned by the Tribunal with reference to financial condition of the
family of the deceased and have not found any error therein, the other
aspect of age becomes irrelevant for the purpose of the case in hand.

13.   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 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
                                                                    5
                                                                                   WRIA No. - 5310 of 2026

                            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.

                            14.         In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere
                            with the order passed by the Tribunal.

                            15.         Consequently, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly,
                            dismissed.



                                                            (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

                            April 15, 2026
                            Jyotsana




Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad