सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने रेलवे की दया नियुक्ति के दावे पर हाई कोर्ट के आदेश को बरकरार रखा

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing the Railway authorities to consider the claim of a deceased employee’s grandson for appointment on compassionate grounds.

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the challenge instituted by the Union of India and the Railway authorities against the High Court’s order in favour of Jitendra Verma.

The dispute arose from Verma’s claim for compassionate appointment following the death of his grandmother, Chhama Bai, who was serving as Helper-II/Khalsi in the Bhopal Division of the West Central Railway. His grandfather had died in 2002, while his father passed away in 2006. Following the death of his father, Verma was brought up by his grandmother.

Chhama Bai died in harness on June 19, 2016. Records maintained by the Railway authorities had, as early as 2007, reflected Verma as her legal heir/nominee. He subsequently obtained a succession certificate from the competent civil court in relation to her estate.

Verma claimed that he had been adopted by his grandmother and sought compassionate appointment. The Railway authorities, however, questioned the validity of the alleged adoption and rejected his claim. The authorities also took the position that the applicable compassionate appointment framework did not contemplate appointment of a grandson of a deceased employee.

The matter eventually reached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which examined the relevant Railway policy governing compassionate appointments. Clause III of the policy primarily identifies the son, daughter, widow or widower of a deceased employee as eligible candidates, while also permitting consideration of a near relative or an adopted son or daughter, subject to the stipulated conditions.

The High Court found that the Railway authorities could not completely disregard Verma’s claim merely on the ground that his status as the legally adopted son of Chhama Bai was disputed. It noted that, even assuming that the adoption claim could not be sustained in law, Verma remained the only near relative of the deceased employee and his claim therefore required examination under the applicable policy.

The High Court had consequently upheld the direction requiring the authorities to reconsider his entitlement in accordance with the governing compassionate appointment provisions.

The Union of India and the Railways thereafter approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s intervention.

The Supreme Court, however, found no ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment and dismissed the plea.

The order thus leaves undisturbed the High Court’s direction requiring the Railway authorities to examine the respondent’s claim within the framework of the applicable compassionate appointment policy. The proceedings arose in Union of India & Ors. v. Jitendra Verma.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News