Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126002-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10445 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raju Respondent :- Union of India and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Chand Rai Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Seema Singh, C.G.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 04.04.2025 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed. 2. Father of the petitioner, who was working as Trackman with the Railways, died while in service on 15.02.2023. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 20.6.2023. The application was rejected by the competent authority on 19.07.2023 on account of the fact that the petitioner was lacking the minimum qualification, which was high school pass. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the Original Application was filed before the Tribunal questioning the validity of the order passed by the respondents with the submissions that as the petitioner had prayed for grant of two years time for obtaining the requisite qualification, the rejection was not justified. 4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that principles pertaining to grant of compassionate appointment have been laid down in State of West Bengal v. Debabrate Tiwari & others : AIR 2023 SC 1467, based on which the Original Application had no substance and consequently, dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that as the petitioner during pendency of the Original Application before the Tribunal, has acquired the requisite qualification of High School, the respondents may be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner/consider his case for appointment. 6. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that on the date the application seeking compassionate appointment was made, the petitioner was not having the requisite minimum qualification and therefore, the respondents were justified in rejecting the application for grant of compassionate appointment. 9. As to whether on account of having obtained the requisite qualification subsequent to the rejection of application, respondents can be directed to consider the case of the petitioner, the issue in this regard is no more res integra, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Jal Board v. Nirmala Devi : (2022) 10 SCC 696 in a case where compassionate appointment was sought on a higher post based on the qualification acquired after date of application but before the date of consideration of the application, Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia laid down as under : "5. Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and considering the facts narrated hereinabove both, the Tribunal and the High Court have committed a serious error in directing the appellant to appoint the Respondent's daughter on the post of LDC. 6. When the Respondent made an application for compassionate appointment on 23.03.2010, her daughter was not graduate and the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of LDC was Graduation. Therefore, the date on which the Respondent applied for compassionate appointment, her daughter was not having the requisite qualification for the post of LDC. As per settled position of law, the qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the application for compassionate appointment is considered. 7. The submission on behalf of the Respondent that as the application for compassionate appointment was permissible within a period of five years and the Respondent's daughter acquired the graduation qualification within a period of five years, the Respondent's daughter can be said to be eligible for appointment on the post of LDC. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted. Once the application for compassionate appointment is made, the qualification which the applicant possess on the date of application is to be considered. Similarly, the submission on behalf of the Respondent that for compassionate appointments, only the bar with respect to age shall be applicable and not with respect to educational qualification cannot be accepted. The compassionate appointment is required to be made on the post considering the educational qualification of the applicant on the date of application/death of the deceased employee. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the department rightly appointed the Respondent's daughter on the post of Assistant Meter Reader considering her qualification at the time of making the application for compassionate appointment." (emphasis supplied) 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that as per the settled position of law, the qualificaiton prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the application for compassionate appointment was made. 11. In the present, the qualification has been obtained even after the rejection took place and therefore, the case of the petitioner is even worse than the facts in the case of Nirmala Devi (Supra). 12. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, no case for interference is made out in the order passed by the Tribunal. 13. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad