Compassionate appointment for medically decategorised railway employees cannot be defeated by a later restrictive circular.

Compassionate appointment under the applicable Railway Board scheme could not be denied to the ward of a medically decategorised employee where the record did not show that alternative employment had been offered in accordance with the governing policy. The employee's retirement was treated as arising from the standing committee's recommendation, and the respondents failed to prove a voluntary retirement after refusal of suitable alternative service. In those circumstances, the later restrictive circular dated 29 November 2001 could not override the earlier circular dated 22 September 1995, which governed the claim. The rejection of compassionate appointment was therefore unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to appointment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to compassionate appointment under the applicable Railway Board instructions, and whether the later circular dated 29th November, 2001 could be applied to deny the claim.

Analysis: Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of public recruitment and must be governed strictly by the applicable scheme. The employee concerned had been medically decategorised, but the record did not show that he was offered alternative employment in accordance with the circular dated 29th April, 1999. The retirement order indicated retirement on the recommendation of the Standing Committee, and the respondents failed to establish that he had voluntarily retired after refusing suitable alternative service. In those circumstances, the later circular dated 29th November, 2001, which limited benefit in certain cases, could not be used against the appellant. The earlier circular dated 22nd September, 1995 governed the claim and contemplated compassionate appointment for the ward of a medically decategorised employee who retired without being offered an alternative suitable job.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to compassionate appointment, and the rejection of the claim on the basis of the later circular was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a medically decategorised railway employee is not shown to have been offered alternative employment under the governing policy, the later restrictive circular cannot be invoked to defeat the ward's claim for compassionate appointment under the earlier applicable scheme.

---