The Supreme Court has refused to disturb a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling that kept alive a grandson’s claim for compassionate appointment in the Railways, after the High Court held that the Railway policy extends such appointment to a “near relative” and that the authorities could not ignore that the claimant was the deceased employee’s only near relative, whatever the fate of his adoption claim.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on September 28 dismissed a special leave petition filed by the Union of India and the Railway authorities against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that directed reconsideration of a compassionate appointment claim made by the grandson of a deceased West Central Railway employee, holding that there was no good ground to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution [Union of India and Others v. Jitendra Verma].
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi first condoned the delay in filing the petition and then declined to entertain it on merits, leaving intact the High Court’s judgment of February 25, 2026, passed at its Principal Seat in Jabalpur.
What the Supreme Court said
The order, which runs to three short paragraphs, records:
“We do not find a good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.”
Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
Background of the case
Jitendra Verma lost his grandfather in 2002 and his father in 2006. He was thereafter raised by his grandmother, Chhama Bai, who worked as a Helper-II (Khalasi) in the Bhopal Division of West Central Railway. In 2007, her service records were updated to show Verma as her legal heir and nominee. Chhama Bai died in harness on June 19, 2016.
Verma then sought compassionate appointment, claiming to be her adopted son. He also obtained a succession certificate from a civil court, but the Railway authorities declined to act on it for the purposes of compassionate appointment. The Railways questioned whether the adoption was valid and rejected his claim, taking the further stand that the scheme made no provision for appointing a grandson.
Tribunal and High Court rulings
The Tribunal directed the Railways to reconsider Verma’s claim. When the Union carried the matter to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the High Court turned to Clause III of the Railway policy on compassionate appointments. That clause names the son, daughter, widow or widower of a deceased employee as eligible, and adds that compassionate appointment “may also be extended to a near relative/adopted son/daughter”, subject to the conditions laid down in the policy.
Reading the clause in that light, the High Court agreed that the Tribunal was right to order a fresh look at the claim. It went a step further on the adoption dispute, holding that even if Verma were not accepted as Chhama Bai’s legally adopted son, the authorities were not free to brush aside the fact that he was the only near relative she had left behind. The Union of India and the Railway authorities then approached the Supreme Court.
Why The Compassionate Appointment Order Matters
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary rule of open recruitment, and courts have repeatedly held that eligibility turns strictly on the terms of the governing scheme. The Railway authorities’ position was that a grandson simply falls outside those terms. The High Court’s reading answered that objection from within the policy itself: the “near relative” limb of Clause III means a claimant who cannot establish adoption is not automatically shut out, and the authorities must assess the claim on that footing as well.
The dismissal of a special leave petition through a brief, non-speaking order does not by itself lay down a binding precedent, and the Supreme Court has not examined the scope of Clause III. What the order does settle is this particular dispute: the High Court’s direction stands, and the Railways must now reconsider Verma’s claim in line with it, a decade after his grandmother’s death.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Jitendra Verma [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 52008/2026]
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Supreme Court of India
Impugned Judgment: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, MP No. 4473/2025, dated February 25, 2026
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
For the Petitioners: Anil Kaushik, Kamal Digpaul, Pranjal Singh, Disha Thakkar, Noor Rampal and Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocates; Amrish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent: Manan Agrawal, Tushar Swami, Prakhar Singh Sengar, Shubham Mishra and Mukul Singh, Advocates; Nihal Ahmad, AOR