HC Upholds CAT Order to Reconsider Compassionate Appointment with Education Relaxation

Case Details: Union of India v. Santosh Kumar [2025] 180 taxmann.com 2 (Allahabad-HC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Attau Rahman Masoodi & Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.
• Vinay Tripathi, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent’s father, employed as a Bearer under the petitioner authorities, passed away, leaving behind his widow and only son. Tragically, the respondent’s mother also died within a week of his father’s death, leaving the respondent completely orphaned. He applied for a compassionate appointment, but no action was taken. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow Bench, allowed his application and directed the authorities to reconsider his case in light of the Office Memorandum dated 11-12-2009 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training and Master Circular No. 16 issued by the Railway Board, which allow for relaxation of educational qualifications in exceptional circumstances.

The petitioners (Union of India and others) challenged the CAT’s order before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the respondent was only an 8th-pass candidate, whereas the minimum qualification for any post was 10th standard, and that such relaxation could be granted only to widows of deceased employees, not other dependents.

High Court Held

The High Court rejected the argument, noting that both the DoPT’s Office Memorandum and the Railway Board’s Master Circular explicitly allow relaxation of educational qualifications in exceptional cases for any dependent of a deceased employee, not just widows. The Court emphasised that since the respondent was the only surviving child who lost both parents within days, the situation clearly constituted an exceptional case warranting such relaxation.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the CAT had rightly directed the authorities to reconsider the respondent’s case for compassionate appointment by granting relaxation in educational qualification as per the applicable government provisions. The writ petition was found devoid of merit and was dismissed at the admission stage.

List of Cases Referred to

• Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue AIR 1963 SC 786 (para 4)
• Savitri Devi v. District Judge (1999) 2 SCC 577 (para 5)
• Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat [2015] 60 taxmann.com 18/131 SCL 604 (SC) (para 7).