Maya Devi Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Maya Devi Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondent-Railways to take an administrative decision within eight weeks on the petitioner's representations, after notice to respondent No. 3 and in compliance with natural justice; any decision not to initiate action to be communicated to the petitioner through counsel, leaving her free to pursue available legal remedies.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-Railways should take action against respondent No. 3 for non-fulfilment of the undertaking, given at the time of his compassionate appointment, to support the petitioner and the rest of the family.

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the complaint, it is appropriate to first give the respondent-Railways an opportunity to take an administrative decision; the respondents are directed to take a decision within eight weeks on the petitioner's representations, after issuance of notice to respondent No. 3 and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Ratio / Principle

If the Railways decide not to initiate any action against respondent No. 3, that decision is to be communicated to the petitioner through her counsel, whereupon she will be entitled to avail such legal remedies as are available to her in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

CM APPL. 47160/2025 (for exemption) is allowed, subject to all just exceptions, and stands disposed of.ratio¶¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prateek Jalan, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Maya Devi, mother of a Railway employee appointed on compassionate grounds following her husband Late Mr. Naval Kishore's medical resignation from Northern Railways. The petitioner alleged she consented to the compassionate appointment of her son (respondent No. 3) only upon his undertaking to support the family, which he has not fulfilled; despite representations to the Railways, a Welfare Inspector's statement recorded on 06.06.2023 (Annexure P-9) and reliance on Clause XIII of the Railways Consolidated Rules (Annexure P-3), no action was taken. The Court directed the Railways to take an administrative decision within eight weeks, after issuance of notice to respondent No. 3 and in compliance with the principles of natural justice; if no action is initiated, the decision is to be communicated to the petitioner, who may then avail available legal remedies.

$~68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 11520/2025 MAYA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Goel, Mr. Paras Sharma, Mr. Balaji Pathak, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with Ms. Minakshi Singh, Mr. Ashutosh Bharti, Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, Advocates for R-1 and 2.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 04.08.2025

CM APPL. 47160/2025 ( for exemption )

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 11520/2025

The petitioner is the mother of Mr. Rahul Kumar - respondent No. 3 herein, who was appointed in the service of the Indian Railways on compassionate grounds. His appointment followed the resignation of the petitioner’s husband, Late Mr. Naval Kishore on medical grounds. Mr. Naval Kishore was employed with respondent No. 2 – Northern Railways, at the post of Chief Officer Superintendent, on medical grounds.

The petitioner contends that she consented to compassionate appointment being granted in favour of her son, subject to an undertaking that he would support the rest of the family. According to the petitioner, such an assurance was given by respondent No. 3, but has not been

Page 1 of 2

W.P.(C) 11520/2025

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 12:13:17

fulfilled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that several representations have been made to the Railways seeking necessary action to be taken against respondent No. 3 in this regard, but no action has been taken, although her statement was recorded on 06.06.2023 by the Office Staff (Welfare Inspector) of respondent No. 2 annexed as Annexure P-9 to the petition. In support of this contention, he relies upon Clause XIII of the Railways Consolidated Rules in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds, a copy of which is annexed to the petition as Annexure P-3.

Having regard to the nature of the complaint made, I am of the view that it is appropriate to first give the respondent-Railways, an opportunity to take an administrative decision. The respondents are directed to take a decision within a period of eight weeks from today upon considering the petitioner’s representations. As respondent No. 3 is not represented today, it is made clear that such a decision will be taken after issuance of notice to him, and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

In the event it is decided not to initiate any action against respondent No. 3, the same be communicated to the petitioner through learned counsel appearing on her behalf. She will then be entitled to avail legal remedies as available to her in accordance with law.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

PRATEEK JALAN, J

AUGUST 4, 2025/ ‘Bhupi/JM’/

Page 2 of 2

W.P.(C) 11520/2025

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/08/2025 at 12:13:17