The Calcutta High Court has decisively rejected a man's request for a compassionate railway appointment, a plea that stretched back to his father's service during the 1974 all-India railway strike. The court, in its September 29 order, emphasized that such appointments are designed to provide immediate financial support to families facing sudden hardship, not as a delayed claim after more than five decades.
Decades of Delay Highlighted by Court
Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai, affirming a railway tribunal's earlier judgment, described the case as “hopelessly belated.” They noted the petitioner had been “unreasonably lax” in pursuing the matter, underscoring that the purpose of compassionate employment is to alleviate immediate penury, a condition not evident in this prolonged pursuit.
The petitioner's father had joined the Divisional Railway Manager’s office, Eastern Railway, Howrah Division, in July 1944 and retired in March 1977. During the 1974 all-India strike, he reportedly “rendered exemplary service” by remaining at his post, for which he was rewarded with an additional increment.
Timeline of a Protracted Legal Battle
The court highlighted that the father continued his employment after the strike, negating any need for a replacement. Furthermore, since he had already received a reward for his loyalty, the court found no grounds for a compassionate employment claim after such a significant passage of time.
The first application for a compassionate appointment on the son's behalf was made by his mother in August 1986, nine years after the father's retirement. The son filed a similar plea in December 1986. Their case was based on a railway circular that extended compassionate appointments in Class III and Class IV posts to “loyal staff,” in addition to employees who died prematurely, became permanently crippled, or suffered serious illness.
Plea Dismissed After Years of Litigation
The legal journey was extensive: the man's initial tribunal plea was dismissed for default in June 1990. He sought its restoration only in 2013, which was also dismissed. Another tribunal plea met the same fate in October 2015, leading him to approach the high court four years later.
The court pointed out that the nine-year gap between the father’s retirement and the initial application strongly suggested the family was not experiencing immediate financial distress. “The fact that the petitioner and his family have been able to survive for about nine years after the retirement of the petitioner’s father would reasonably lead to an inference that the petitioner’s family did not fall in penury,” the court stated.
Ultimately, observing that “delay defeats equity,” the Calcutta High Court dismissed the plea, concluding a legal battle spanning decades.