IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16091 of 2007 DILIP KUMAR RAM Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.S.K.Tiwary For the respondents: Mr. Mahesh Prasad Smt. Parul Ranjan P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 1st July, 2008 After having heard the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the writ petition is wholly frivolous and misconceived. The petitioner happens to be the brother of one Raj Kumar Ram. Raj Kumar Ram was working as a casual labourer in NF Railway. He died on 26.1.1990. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground being brother of Raj Kumar Ram, which was rejected vide order dated July 4, 2001. The communication sent to the petitioner’s mother rejecting the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground reads thus: “Your application for compassionate appointment of Shri Dilip Kr. Ram, brother of Shri R.K.Ram, Ex- CL-Gangman of this division has been examined. It is 2 seen that on 26.1.1990, the date of death of Shri Raj Kumar Ram, the father of the candidate Shri Dilip Kr. Ram, i.e., Shri Balbhadra Ram was in railway service. As such Shri Dilip Kumar Ram cannot be considered as “dependant” brother of Shri Raj Kr. Ram. Shri Dilip Kr. Ram has to be dependant upon his father who was alive on 26.1.1990. Further, in the case of casual labourers, compassionate appointment is permissible only in favour of the wife or son/daughter of the Ext-CL and not in favour of a brother, even if dependant on the Ext- CL. Because of the above two reasons, compassionate appointment in favour of Shri Dilip Kr. Ram is not permissible. The case is, therefore, treated as closed from this end.” The counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality in the said communication. In what we have observed above, the consideration of the matter by the tribunal on the ground of limitation pales into insignificance. It needs no emphasis that the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the ordinary process of recruitment to enable the family member of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis that had occurred due to death of the sole earning member of the family. The deceased employee was only the casual labourer and as per the policy of the railways, the compassionate appointment in the category of the Ex - CL is permissible only to the wife or son or daughter. The petitioner being brother is not entitled to such an appointment at all. 3 The writ petition , accordingly, has no merit and it is dismissed in limine. Neyaz R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J