APHC010404462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 21295 OF 2025 Between: 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, 3RD FLOOR. RAIL NILAYAM SECUNDERABAD - 500025. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, VIJAYAWADADIVISION, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY DRM COMPOUND. GANDHI NAGAR VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH -520001. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,, VIJAYAWADA DIVISION, DRM COMPOUND, GANDHI NAGAR VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520001 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KOSANAM SHAINE, W/o Late Kosanam Naga Raju Age-24, Occ unemployed, R/o H.No.8-1, Near Ambedkar Statue, Pedavadlapudi village, Mangalgiri Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh PIN- 522302, Mob 9133262676. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P RAMCHANDER RAO 2 The Court made the following ORDER: (per NJSJ) The petitioners, who are respondents in O.A.No.311 of 2023, aggrieved by the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 29.11.2024 filed the present Writ Petition. 2) The respondent herein filed the said OA aggrieved by the letter rejecting her request for compassionate appointment due to the death of her husband. 3) The respondent / applicant approached the Tribunal inter alia stating that she was born in Schedule Caste (Mala) family; her marriage was solemnized with one Mr.K.Nagaraju, despite the age gap of 12 years, on 17.02.2012 and she gave birth to one female child and a male child on 08.07.2013 and 16.10.2014 respectively. Further that her father-in-law, who was working as a trackman in Railways opted for voluntary retirement and her husband was appointed as Trackman under the Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS). She also stated that on 30.06.2019, her husband died while he was working on the railway track at Platform No.7 at Vijayawada Railway Station, she was not in a position to feed her small children as such made a representation seeking compassionate appointment. However, her request was rejected vide letter dated 01.10.2020 on the premise that her husband - an ex-employee of railways has chosen a fraudulent way to get recruitment into the railways. 4) Before the Tribunal it was inter alia contended that the respondent’s husband, who was appointed as a trackman pursuant to the scheme of the railways as Trackman, discharged duties as such for 3 ½ years and during his 3 lifetime no enquiry was conducted with reference to the allegation that he secured employment in railways in a fraudulent way. While highlighting the object of compassionate appointments with reference to the relevant circulars of the railways and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it was urged that denial of compassionate appointment to the respondent / applicant, on the ground of alleged mischief played by her husband is not just or tenable and amounts to imposing punishment on an innocent person. The writ petitioners / respondents filed their reply and contested the matter. They urged that it is a clear case of fraud played by the husband of the applicant / respondent herein and as such, the employment of the deceased is void ab initio and therefore no further compassion can be extended, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5) The learned Tribunal examined the matter in detail, inter alia, as to whether the compassionate appointment can be denied because of the alleged misconduct of the applicant’s husband. While observing that no action was initiated during the lifetime of the applicant’s husband, the Tribunal held that the wife of the deceased (applicant) cannot be made liable for any of the acts imputed against her deceased husband. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the O.A. and directed the respondents-writ petitioners to consider the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment by fixing the time limit. 6) The learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions inter alia that the order under challenge is not sustainable as the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter in a proper perspective. It is his submission that as the 4 appointment of the husband of the respondent / applicant itself is by fraudulent means, the question of the respondent’s appointment on compassionate grounds does not arise. He also submits that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but a matter of policy and the employer cannot be compelled to provide compassionate appointment contrary to the scheme / rules. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the order under challenge. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / applicant made submissions to sustain the order of the learned Tribunal. He submits that the conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal are well founded and as held by it, the respondent / applicant i.e., wife of the employee of railways is entitled for compassionate appointment in view of the death of her husband in harness. He submits that denial of compassionate appointment on the allegation that the respondent / applicant’s husband or her father-in-law had obtained some certificate mischievously or fraudulently, in the absence of any enquiry against them, much less without any report is wholly unjust, contrary to well established principles of law. He submits that due to the death of her husband, the respondent /applicant is finding it difficult to take care of the children. In such circumstances, denial of compassionate appointment, that too after sanctioning family pension and other benefits, in view of the death of her husband is not justified. He submits that the Tribunal’s conclusions are valid, warrants no interference and accordingly urges for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 8) This Court has considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. Perused the material on record. 9) On appreciation of the rival contentions the point that arises for adjudication is “Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction or illegal and perverse, calling for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” 10) At the outset, it may be relevant to mention that there is no dispute with regard to the death of the husband of the respondent/applicant on 30.06.2019 while he was on duty. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/applicant made an application/representation to the concerned authority, as per the procedure seeking compassionate appointment in view of the untimely death of the breadwinner of the family. As noted earlier, the petitioners/authorities had not acceded to the request for compassionate appointment on the ground that the respondent/applicant’s husband secured the job under LARGESS by producing false documents. Thus, it is not a case where the respondent/applicant had indulged in any fraudulent practice. The genuineness or otherwise of a document has to be determined after giving due opportunity to the person who got benefit by virtue of the document submitted / produced by applicant’s husband. However, such a situation in the present case does not arise. No enquiry was conducted against him while he was discharging functions as Trackman. No reasons are forthcoming in this regard. Be that as it may. 11) From a reading of the impugned order, it is discernible that the learned Tribunal had taken into consideration the Railway Board Guidelines dated 19.06.2000 providing for dropping / closure of disciplinary proceedings immediately on the death of the charged railway servant. Notably, the present case is on a better footing, as no disciplinary proceedings were initiated before the death of the respondent / applicant’s husband on the alleged mischief / fraudulent means adopted in securing the job of Trackman. Any enquiry in this regard if at all was initiated prior to his death cannot be continued. Further, the object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the difficulties due to the sudden demise of an earning family member. The law with regard to compassionate appointments is well settled. No doubt, compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but in the absence of any disqualification / disentitlement, contemplated in the scheme providing for compassionate appointments on the death of an employee, the same cannot be denied, else the very object of providing the compassionate appointments would become redundant. 12) In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners / authorities that the respondent / appellant is not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground of any disqualification. She was denied compassionate appointment on the premise that her husband allegedly secured job by producing false document. It is a mere allegation and admittedly no enquiry with regard to correctness or otherwise of the said documents was conducted and even if any enquiry was initiated during the lifetime of the respondent / applicant’s husband, the proceedings ought to be closed on his demise during the pendency of the proceedings. In any event, the unproven allegation 7 cannot be pressed into service against an innocent respondent-applicant, who is seeking compassionate appointment and nothing to do with the alleged act of her husband in producing so called false documents. 13) On thorough appreciation of the order of the learned Tribunal with reference to the material on record, this Court finds that the direction to consider the respondent / applicant’s case for compassionate appointment is supported by cogent reasons and there is no illegality or perversity. The point is answered accordingly. 14) In the light of the conclusions arrived at with reference to the factual and legal position, the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners deserves no consideration and the same are therefore rejected. 15) In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 16) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Date:12.09.2025 Ssv 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 21295 OF 2025 Date:12.09.2025 ssv