AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 226 wordsAdarsh Kumar Goel, J.—Leave granted.
The respondent claimed compassionate appointment on the death of her husband on 26.11.2000. Since the appointment was not given on the ground that no vacancy was available in terms of the applicable instructions. Within three years, the respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent on merits and this view has been upheld by the High Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis as laid down by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. 1994 (4) SCC 138 and in State of U.P.& Ors. v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi 2003 (11) SCC 178. Thus, direction to give compassionate appointment several years after death was not justified We are in agreement with the above submission. The death of the husband of the respondent took place on 26.11.2000 and there is nothing to show that any vacancy was available within the period of three years from the said date. In the circumstances, the view taken in the impugned order cannot be sustained.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.