VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed railway authorities to reconsider a compassionate appointment application within three months, emphasising that such claims must be evaluated with humanity rather than mechanically, taking into account the family’s genuine financial distress.
In a recent ruling, a Division Bench comprising Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela allowed the writ petition filed by Bora Narayanamma, daughter of late B. Ramulu, a former gangman in the Railways from Kottavalasa village in Vizianagaram district.
The court set aside the rejection of her claim and the earlier order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had upheld the denial primarily on grounds of delay.
B. Ramulu served as a gangman in the Railways but, due to health issues, was offered an alternative post under decategorization in 1999. He opted for voluntary retirement in 2000, receiving a pension of Rs 1,895 along with Rs 1.5 lakh as PF and gratuity. He passed away later.
In 2006, his daughter Narayanamma applied for a compassionate appointment, citing severe family financial hardship. The Divisional Railway authorities recommended it after recognising the distress, but higher officials rejected it, citing that the application was not made within five years as per the rules. CAT dismissed her challenge, prompting her to approach the High Court in 2019.
The Bench held that a compassionate appointment is not a vested right or inheritance, but authorities are duty-bound to consider applications justly and not reject them unilaterally or mechanically. Financial distress must be taken into consideration.
The purpose is to prevent the death (or incapacitation) of the breadwinner from becoming an “economic death” for the family. The State has a responsibility to provide immediate relief to families left in poverty, as employees often leave behind not assets but hardship.
The bench observed that the five-year delay was not “inordinate” or unusual in this case. The petitioner stated she and her father were unaware of the rules, a point the court accepted. Mere delay cannot be the sole ground for rejection.
The court emphasised that authorities cannot ignore real economic difficulties or enquiry reports showing hardship. It criticised both the railway rejection and the CAT’s order for failing to weigh these factors properly.
The Bench quashed the impugned orders and instructed railway authorities to reconsider Narayanamma’s application for compassionate appointment strictly in line with policy.