Court Affirms Requirement of Proven Dependency and Welfare Inspector Inquiry for Compassionate Appointments to Central Government Service Dependents
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/2683/2024 of JYOTI KUMARI Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY |
| CNR | JHHC010142122024 |
| Date of Registration | 06-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Rajesh Shankar, J. |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi |
| Bench | Hon’ble The Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar |
| Precedent Value | Affirmed existing rules and scheme |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Service law (Compassionate Appointment) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that under the updated Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, a sister of an unmarried deceased government servant is eligible only if wholly dependent at the time of death. Dependency must be proven by documentary evidence or verified via a Welfare Inspector. Mere inclusion in a notification does not create a vested right, and existing Supreme Court precedents emphasize the exceptional and relief-oriented nature of such appointments. The presence of a living parent entitled to pension precludes finding that the sister was dependent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner’s brother died in harness leaving parents and siblings; petitioner claimed dependency but produced no documentary proof; father is alive, retired and receiving pension; Welfare Inspector’s report recorded no declared dependency by petitioner. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the High Court of Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals considering compassionate appointment under Central Government schemes |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Dependency under the updated Scheme must be “wholly dependent” at the time of the government servant’s death.
- Documentary proof (e.g., pass declaration, ration card entry) of dependency is mandatory; absence triggers a Welfare Inspector’s fact-finding inquiry.
- Compassionate appointment remains an exception to merit-based recruitment and does not confer a vested right.
- The existence of a living parent with pension entitlement negates a finding of exclusive dependency by a sibling.
- Railway Board Guidelines clarify that documentary requirements are facilitative, not restrictive, but dependency must still be established.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The updated Scheme (02.08.2022) defines “Dependent Family Member” in Clause 3 Note I and sets eligibility in Clause 6.
- The Scheme’s object is immediate relief to families of deceased/medically retired government servants.
- Supreme Court precedents underscore that compassionate appointment is a relief provision, not a recruitment entitlement.
- Railway Board Guidelines (RBE 70/2014) require proof of dependency or a Welfare Inspector’s verification.
- In this case, petitioner produced no documentary proof; Welfare Inspector’s report confirmed no declared dependency.
- The petitioner’s father was alive, retired, and receiving pension, precluding the petitioner’s dependence.
- The Central Administrative Tribunal rightly dismissed the petition; High Court found no error in applying the Scheme.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner, as unmarried sister, is eligible under the updated Scheme’s definition of dependent.
- Fulfils educational and suitability criteria; brother’s death left family in financial crisis.
Respondents
- No documentary proof of petitioner’s dependency on the deceased employee.
- Father is alive and pensioner; petitioner cannot be found “wholly dependent.”
- Welfare Inspector’s inquiry confirmed absence of dependency.
Factual Background
Jyoti Kumari’s brother, a Trackman with East Central Railway, died in harness on 18.01.2022. She applied for compassionate appointment under Ministry of Personnel’s Scheme, which was rejected on 26.11.2022 by the Divisional Personnel Officer. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed her Original Application for lack of proven dependency, and she filed this writ petition for quashing that order and the rejection letter.
Statutory Analysis
- Scheme for Compassionate Appointment Under Central Government (updated 02.08.2022):
- Clause 3 Note I defines “Dependent Family Member,” including sister of an unmarried servant if wholly dependent.
- Clause 6 requires indigence and suitability for the post.
- Railway Board Guidelines (RBE 70/2014): proof of dependency via family declaration or Welfare Inspector inquiry.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan concurred with Justice Rajesh Shankar’s reasoning; no separate opinion recorded.
Procedural Innovations
Reinforces the procedural step of deploying a Welfare Inspector to verify dependency in absence of documentary proof.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Scheme and Supreme Court authorities affirmed.
Citations
- 2025:JHHC:23904-DB
- W.P.(S) No. 2683 of 2024
- Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481
- State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653