JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Ms. P. Borgohain along with Ms. N. Shyamal, learned counsels for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.K. Dey and Ms. Puja Chakraborty, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This writ petition is preferred against the Order dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 317 of 2010. Before the said Tribunal challenge was made to the Order dated 19.04.2010 whereby the petitioner's claim for appointment of her son on compassionate ground was rejected. 3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner's husband i.e. Suresh Chandra Das was employed as a Cook at N.F. Railways. He suffered from diminished vision from 1986 and had also undergone cataract eye operation. His prolonged illness was subjected to evaluation by the Railway Medical Board and eventually he was declared as totally incapacitated and unfit to continue in service vide Certificate No. 7 dated 04.05.2005. Pursuant thereto, Suresh Chandra Das was terminated from service on medical grounds by Office Order dated 20.06.2005 with effect from 05.05.2005. During his lifetime Suresh Chandra Das made an application on 02.08.2005 for appointment of his son Sri Bijoy Das on compassionate grounds. However, the same was rejected by the Railway Authority on 12.05.2006 on ground that Bijoy Das being born out of the second marriage contracted by Suresh Chandra Das and since such marriage had taken place without seeking permission from the Railway Administration, as such, the relevant guidelines did not permit consideration of the case for appointment on compassionate ground. The matter was not taken forward as, in the meanwhile, Suresh Chandra Das expired on 03.04.2006, that is about a month prior to the rejection letter dated 12.05.2006. The writ petitioner herein took up the cause for appointment of her son Bijoy Das by submitting a representation dated 11.01.2008 before the Divisional Railway Manager (P), N.F. Railway, Tinsukia. The fall-out of the said representation was the order of rejection dated 19.04.2010, which is reproduced hereunder Office of the General Manager (P) Maligaon, Guwahati-11 No. 586E/81/1(W)TSK Pt. III To, DRM (P)/TSK Sub:- Clarification about appointment on comp. ground in favour of Sri Bijoy Das, S/O Late Suresh Ch. Das, Ex-Cook under SS/MXN. Ref - Your letter No. E/105/Misc/TSK(W)/Apptt(O) dated 12.02.2010. The above case was put up to Competent Authority who has observed the following. III To, DRM (P)/TSK Sub:- Clarification about appointment on comp. ground in favour of Sri Bijoy Das, S/O Late Suresh Ch. Das, Ex-Cook under SS/MXN. Ref - Your letter No. E/105/Misc/TSK(W)/Apptt(O) dated 12.02.2010. The above case was put up to Competent Authority who has observed the following. "As per extant rules when an employee is declared totally incapacitated and is not in a position to continue in any post he/she may be allowed to opt for VR. In such cases, CGA may be considered to an eligible ward for the employee. However, in this instant case the employee did not apply for VR. Instead his service was terminated as stated by DRM(P)/TSK. Therefore, CGA will not be admissible in this case". Action may therefore, be taken to implies the issue. Sd/- Illegible (A.K. Mukherjee) SPO Reett For General Manager (P)/MLG 4. The challenge made to the order of rejection dated 19.04.2010 was negated by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 18.07.2011 on grounds that Suresh Chandra Das not having opted for voluntary retirement, therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment in favour of Bijoy Das was rightly rejected. The Tribunal further held that at the time of retirement Bijoy Das did not attain the age of majority and, as such, no right accrued for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. The issue before us is as to whether the order of rejection dated 19.04.2010 is sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and/or whether the issue with regard to appointment of the petitioner's ward requires to be revisited by the Railway authorities. 6. There is no dispute that the Master Circular No.16 of the Railway authorities also permits appointment on compassionate grounds of the dependants of Railway servants who are rendered medically incapacitated/decategorised. Therefore, subject to other considerations, the ward of Suresh Chandra Das is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds under the aforesaid Master Circular. The question now to be considered is whether the Railway authority could deny and say that compassionate ground appointment is not admissible in respect of Bijoy Das as his father Suresh Chandra Das did not apply for voluntary retirement and, instead, was terminated from service. The question now to be considered is whether the Railway authority could deny and say that compassionate ground appointment is not admissible in respect of Bijoy Das as his father Suresh Chandra Das did not apply for voluntary retirement and, instead, was terminated from service. Before answering this issue, it would be apposite to peruse the Office Order of termination dated 20.06.2005 that was served upon Suresh Chandra Das. The dates appearing in the said Office Order assumes great significance. The first date to be noticed is 04.05.2005, being the date of the Certificate No.7 issued by the Railway Medical Authority declaring Suresh Chandra Das as medically unfit. The second date is the Office Order of termination, which is 20.06.2005, which is made effective retrospectively from 05.05.2005, that is on and from the next date when the Certificate No.7 was issued. In this backdrop, we may now notice the order of rejection dated 19.04.2010 which makes mention of extant rules providing for allowing an employee to opt for voluntary retirement if such employee is declared totally incapacitated and is not in a position to continue in the post. The said order of rejection also categorically mentions that Suresh Chandra Das did not apply for voluntary retirement and, as such, his service was terminated. As no application was made for voluntary retirement, the case of his son Sri Bijoy Das was held to be not admissible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Whether Suresh Chandra Das was afforded opportunity or allowed to opt for voluntary retirement was the pointed query made by this Court to the Railway counsel, which did not find any satisfactory response. The Court is satisfied that not the least opportunity was afforded to Suresh Chandra Das to opt for voluntary retirement, having regard to the dates and events taking place as recorded in the Office Order of termination dated 20.06.2005. The picture is clear that instead of giving scope and/or asking Suresh Chandra Das to exercise his option for voluntary retirement, the Railway authorities, instead, terminated his service in great haste with effect from 05.05.2005 on the basis of the Unfit Certificate No.7 dated 04.05.2005. The picture is clear that instead of giving scope and/or asking Suresh Chandra Das to exercise his option for voluntary retirement, the Railway authorities, instead, terminated his service in great haste with effect from 05.05.2005 on the basis of the Unfit Certificate No.7 dated 04.05.2005. In this respect, the petitioner has made categorical statement at paragraph 2 of the writ petition stating that the Order dated 20.06.2005 terminating Suresh Chandra Das from service with effect from 05.05.2005 was issued without any prior notice and without affording any opportunity to him to opt for voluntary retirement. This statement is not traversed by the respondent Railways. 7. Having noted the facts above, we are satisfied that the order of rejection dated 19.04.2010 was not issued bonafide or by exercising due application of mind. The crucial point as to whether Suresh Chandra Das was allowed to opt for voluntary retirement was lost sight of by the Railway authorities as well as by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to set aside the order of rejection dated 19.04.2010 as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 18.07.2011. We, accordingly, allow the present writ petition with direction to the respondent Railways to reconsider the case for appointment of the son (Bijoy Das) of the petitioner on compassionate grounds to any suitable post commensurate to his suitability and qualification. Let the required exercise be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from today. Needless to say that any final decision taken by the Railway authorities shall be duly intimated to the petitioner.