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 विषय एं सन्द्ቝ में अगत कराना है विक उपरो्ሹ अनुकम्पा विनयुवि्ሹ के ्ቚकरण को स्ቌम अधि#कारी महोदय के स्तर पर विचार उपरांत यह पाया गया विक स्. कमचारी की संतान परिरपक् एं आयु 30 ष से अधि#क है तथा आपको समस्त समापन ्ቝुगतान एं पारिरारिरक पेंशन ्ቚा्቎ हो रही है एं स्. कमचारी ्ቛारा कोई जि4म्मेदारी विनहन हेतु शेष नहीं छोड़ी है। अतः ्ቦी मनो4 कु मार याद पु्ቔ स्. रा4 बहादुर का अनुकम्पा विनयुवि्ሹ के ्ቚकरण को स्ቌम अधि#कारी ्ቛारा विचारणीय 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