Compassionate Appointment Is Not An Absolute Right, It Aims To Remedy Only The Sudden Crisis Faced By a Deceased Employee's Family: CAT, Allahabad

Brief Facts:

The father of the Applicant was serving in the Defense Department. He passed away in a road accident. The mother of the Applicant submitted an application to the Department for the appointment of the Applicant on compassionate grounds. She mentioned that she had no other source of livelihood. The Department did not decide on the said representation for 3 years and after 3 years, the representation was rejected. Therefore, the Applicant submitted another representation for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, it was rejected again. Further, the Applicant was informed that his case cannot be reconsidered. Later the Ministry of Personal, Public Grievance and Pensions (“Ministry”) issued fresh instructions for granting appointments on compassionate grounds. The Applicant contended that he must be reconsidered under the new instructions. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (“Tribunal”).

In response, the Department contended that the Applicant's initial request for appointment was considered by a welfare office, who submitted the report soon after his appointment. Further, the decision was made by considering the departmental rules and statutory provisions. During the board proceedings held to assess the Applicant's eligibility, the Applicant scored 24 out of 100 points, which were not sufficient for his appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, his mother's contention of being destitute and having no source of income was frivolous since the Department regularly disbursed all the pensionary benefits after the demise of the Applicant's father.

Observations by the Tribunal:

At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had only nine months left until reaching the age of superannuation (retirement). Additionally, there were no minor children or unmarried daughters, and the Applicant's family had already received terminal benefits and was regularly receiving a family pension. Consequently, the Applicant scored only 24 out of 100 points when evaluated by the board of officers, indicating that the case did not merit compassionate appointment.

Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted the significant delay in the submission of the original application, which was filed approximately seven years after the initial rejection in 2008. Instead of approaching a judicial forum promptly, the Applicant continued to submit representations, without filing a delay condonation application alongside the current original application to explain the prolonged delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855 of 2022], where the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is not an absolute right but aims to assist bereaved families in overcoming sudden crises. The Tribunal concluded that almost 19 years had passed since the demise of the Applicant's father, suggesting that the financial crisis, if any, had likely subsided.

Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the Applicant.

Case Title: Ankur Lal vs Union of India and Anr.

Case No.: Original Application No. 717 of 2015

Advocate for the Applicant: Shri AP Mishra

Advocate for the Respondents: Shri Rajnikant Rai

Click Here To Read/Download Order