Applicants have challenged Annexure A-1 dated 24.3.1994 addressed to applicant No.2 whereby his request for appointment of his ward (applicant No.1) on compassionate ground has not been acceded to. The learned counsel of applicants stated that applicant No.2 was declared medically unfit for Railway service on 7.5.1984. As his son (applicant No.1) was a minor at that point of time, request was made for his appointment on compassionate ground on 7.6.1993 when he attained majority. He requested for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Railway Boards circular dated 6.10.1995 (Annexure A-2), which permitted making of such applications within a period of two years of attainment of majority age. The learned counsel of applicant relied upon Annexure A-5 dated 9.10.1998 which are DOP&T instructions on the scheme for compassionate appointment in terms of which, the learned counsel stated that the relief under the scheme can be granted to the dependant family members of a Government servant who is retired on medical grounds besides the dependants of a deceased Government servant. The learned counsel also relied upon provisions of Rule 304 of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I (Annexure A-6).
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel of respondents stated that applicant No.2, Shri Duryodhan, who was working as Fireman under Loco Foreman, Moradabad was declared medically decategorised from 7.5.1984 as Fireman and fit in category A-1 and below. However, he was retired on his own request as he could not be given a job carrying the same emoluments. He was due to superannuate on 31.1.1993. The learned counsel stated that while applicant No.2 requested for appointment of his ward on compassionate ground in 1993, i.e., after nine years of applicants retirement, as per rules, such a ward can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground within five years of medical decategorisation. The learned counsel further stated that while DOP&T instructions dated 9.10.1998 are not applicable to the present case, Railways own instructions dated 12.12.1990 (Annexure R-I) relate to the subject. Annexure R-I is a master circular on appointment on compassionate grounds. The learned counsel pointed out that while in the case of death of a Railway employee, case of compassionate appointment is open to a minor son when he attains majority, such cases cannot be kept open beyond a period of five years. The learned counsel stated that wife of the retired employee could be offered a job on compassionate grounds on his medical incapacity or decategorisation provided that he had no son or daughter or the son or daughter was a minor at the time the request for appointment was made. According to the learned counsel, applicant had two major daughters at the appropriate time and as such, if the wife had not sought an appointment on compassionate ground, the minor son could not have asked for an appointment on compassionate ground after attaining majority.
3. I have considered the contentions raised from both sides.
4. Rule 304 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume-I does not relate to the present subject. It relates to provisions of alternative employment to a Railway servant who fails in vision test or otherwise by virtue of disability acquired during service and becomes physically incapable of performing the duties of the post.
5. Admittedly, applicant No.2 had become medically decategorised and was retired on his own request when he was not provided a job with the same emoluments. In the present case, DOP&T instructions dated 9.10.1998 would not be applicable when the Railways have their own specific instructions, i.e., Annexure R-I dated 12.12.1990. The relevant instructions read as follows : (vii) In the case of a railway servant who is medically incapacitated or decategorised and retires from service and if compassionate appointment is otherwise permissible, such appointments may be offered also to the wife of the railway servant subject to the following conditions :- (a) Either the employee has no son or daughter or the son or daughter is a minor at the time the request for appointment is made. (x) Where the widow cannot take up employment, Railways can keep the case for appointment on compassionate grounds open to enable consideration of appointment of a minor son when he attains majority, even though at the time of occurrence of the event making compassionate appointment permissible, there is a daughter who has attained majority and/or a major son who is already employed. This will be subject to the following conditions :-
6. In the case of the applicant, instructions stated at (vii) (a) above would be applicable and not those at (x) above. Instructions at (x) above relate to the case of a deceased employee where provision for appointment on compassionate ground, of a widow and her minor son on attainment of majority, has been made. In the case of the applicant who had been declared medically decategorised, instructions at (vii) (a) would be applicable, i.e., his wife could ask for employment on compassionate ground if she had no son or daughter or the son or the daughter was a minor. It is admitted that in the present case, there were two major daughters. While wife of the applicant did not ask for appointment on compassionate ground, two daughters were major at that time. While in my view, these instructions are applicable to the case of the applicants and applicant No.1 has made an application after a delay of nine years, there is no merit in the case as per Railway Boards instructions contained in Annexure R-I. As such, this OA is liable to be dismissed being without merit, and it is ordered accordingly. However, keeping in view the medical decategorisation of the Railway employee leading to his seeking retirement, respondents may consider the case of applicant No.1 for compassionate appointment sympathetically, if possible. ( V. K. Majotra ) Vice-Chairman (A) /as/