Immediate Financial Hardship' Faced By Family Is Guiding Principle For Offering Compassionate Appointment: New Delhi Central Administrative Tribunal

The bench held that the mere passage of time or the fact that a family member is still pursuing education to enhance their qualifications does not meet the fundamental requirement of "immediate financial penury."

Brief Facts:

The Applicant's father served as a Section Officer in the Ministry of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare. After the father's passing in August 2015, the Applicant submitted multiple representations, seeking compassionate appointment due to financial distress faced by the family. These representations went unanswered by the Ministry. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (“Tribunal”) and filed an original application. The Tribunal directed the Ministry to reconsider the application along with others and emphasized on completion of the process within 60 days. Following this directive, the Ministry issued a detailed order, rejecting the Applicant's claim based on the Departmental Standing Committee's decision, which found the applicant ineligible for compassionate appointment. The Applicant filed an original application in the Tribunal challenging this decision.

The Applicant stressed the financial plight of the family post the father's demise and his educational status at the time. He also argued that despite vacancies in 2019, he was not considered.

In contrast, the Ministry referred to the DOPT guidelines earmarking 5% of vacancies for compassionate appointment. It argued that the Applicant's case was considered against previous vacancies but rejected due to more deserving candidates. It highlighted the financial benefits received by the family, including death cum gratuity and pension amounting to nearly Rs. 50,000, which it contended mitigate any alleged financial distress. Furthermore, it emphasized the Applicant's current private employment, earning over Rs. 50,000 per month, as evidence of financial stability.

Observations by the Tribunal:

The High Court noted that the compassionate appointment have been delineated by Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the DOPT. The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors where the SC articulated crucial principles governing compassionate appointments. Notably, the Tribunal noted htat compassionate appointment serves as an exception to regular recruitment procedures, intended to alleviate the financial burden faced by the deceased employee's family. Moreover, it emphasizes the immediate necessity of such appointments to address financial crises, precluding claims made after an extended period.

From these principles, the Tribunal noted the notion of "immediate financial penury" is paramount in determining eligibility for compassionate appointment. It held that the passage of time and the pursuit of further education by a dependent cannot supplant the fundamental criterion of acute financial need. It noted that the family's financial stability was underscored by the deceased father's position as a Section Officer having substantial pensionary benefits exceeding Rs. 50,000 per month. It held that the family's situation didn't align with the requisite financial distress necessitated for compassionate appointment.

The Tribunal held that judicial intervention is unwarranted in administrative decisions where the Screening Committee has meticulously assessed the family's financial status. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

Case Title: Kishore Dhakate Vs Secretary, Department Of Agriculture & Cooperation And Ors.

Case Number: O.A. No. 601/2020

Advocate for the Applicant: Avnish Singh

Advocate for the Respondent: Ranjan Tyagi

Click Here To Read/Download Order