51 years too late: Calcutta High Court rejects plea for railway job linked to father’s 1974 strike service

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a man’s plea for a compassionate railway appointment linked to his father’s service during the 1974 all-India railway strike, saying such appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief and cannot be claimed after a passage of 51 years, The Indian Express reported.

Agreeing with a railway tribunal that the case was “hopelessly belated”, Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai said the man had been “unreasonably lax” in pursuing his case.

“Such schemes are concessions aimed at providing immediate help to the family members of the concerned employee so that they can tide over the sudden penury,” the court said in its September 29 order.

Father rewarded for service during 1974 strike

The man’s father had joined the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah Division on July 19, 1944 and retired on March 1, 1977. The petitioner said his father had “rendered exemplary service to the railways since he stood firm in his duties during the ‘All India Strike’ in 1974” and was rewarded with an additional increment.

The court noted that the father continued working after the strike and no one was required to be appointed in his place. Since the employer had already rewarded him with an additional increment along with his regular increment, “the petitioner cannot claim a compassionate employment, after passage of 51 years.”

Don't Miss: DoorDash to create 3,000 jobs at global tech hub in Telangana

First application came nine years after retirement

The man’s mother first sought a compassionate appointment for him on August 4, 1986, nine years after his father’s retirement. He filed a similar plea on December 13, 1986.

His case was based on a railway circular that extended compassionate appointments in Class III and Class IV posts to “loyal staff” apart from employees who died prematurely, became permanently crippled or suffered serious illness.

Must Read: YouTube’s India creator ecosystem generates 9.6 lakh jobs, ₹18,000 crore economic value: Report

Plea dismissed after decades of litigation

His first tribunal plea was “dismissed for default” on June 12, 1990. He sought its restoration only in 2013, but that plea was dismissed on May 6, 2013. Another tribunal plea was dismissed on October 14, 2015, and he approached the high court four years later.

The court said the nine-year gap between his father’s retirement and the first application itself indicated that the family was not facing 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,” it said.

Observing that “delay defeats equity”, the court dismissed the plea.