A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice R Hemalatha, on pointing out that it is clear that the petitioner’s husband suffered from a serious medical condition incapacitating him from continuing his employment, said: “However, compassionate appointment, both in the case of a deceased employee as well as employees who voluntarily retire due to medical conditions, is not a matter of right or entitlement. The financial distress due to such death or voluntary retirement is assessed by the employer and only in case, an employer feels that compassionate appointment to one of the wards would alleviate the family from financial stress such appointments would be considered.

“In the instant case, it was found by the Chennai Division, Southern Railway that with a family pension in place for the present petitioner and two of her sons already working, it cannot be said that the family is in penury or poverty,” the bench added.

The petitioner’s counsel had argued that an employee who dies in harness and one who is found medically unfit and is allowed to voluntarily retire, are to be placed on equal footing for grant of compassionate appointment.

The Southern Railway contended that the husband had obtained voluntary retirement just eight days ahead of his superannuation and the railway board circular had clearly stated that compassionate appointment ‘may be considered’ clearly showing it is not an entitlement but purely the discretion of the SR, keeping in mind the factors involved.