HET RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner no.2 is the father of petitioner no.1 he lost his leg while in service and subsequently retired on 31/3/1995. Petitioner no.1 (son) applied for compassionate appointment on 31/3/1995 itself. He case was not Allegedly considered by respondents and he filed O.A. 1261/1995 for this which was rejected by impugned order dated 29/6/1998 on the ground that his father had retired on superannuation and not medical incapacitation as contemplated by Railways Master Circular dated 12/12/1990. Hence this petition.

(2.) Petitioner's short case is that the aforesaid circular did not provide for compassionate appointment on Railway servant retiring on medical incapacitation. L/C for petitioner, Ms. Ramakrishnan has taken us through various provisions of this Circular to show that the retirement on medical incapacitation was not there.

(3.) Mr. Krishna representing respondents on the other hand took pains to bring out the real intent of the Circular to show that no compassion could be said to be involved where a railway servant retired from service on superannuation and was drawing all retiral benefits. He stressed that rationale behind a compassionate appointment was to provide succour to dependants of a servant in distress and not to pave way for their back door entry.