Vimla Devi And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

The present OA has been filed by the applicants, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2014 directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicants for granting

compassionate appointment to applicant no.2 to provide assistance to applicant no.1.

(b) to allow the Original Application directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicants in accordance with law.

(c) to pass any other or further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.â€​

The applicants in this OA has, inter alia, challenged the impugned order dated 21.05.2014 whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of

applicant no.1 for grant of compassionate appointment to applicant no.2 irrespective of facts that late employee died in harness leaving behind 3

unmarried sons and two unmarried daughters.

The respondents, while contesting the OA, have submitted in their reply that the case of applicant no.1 had been considered sympathetically but

since there were more deserving cases and the applicant’s family had not been found in penurious condition as all the dependents, i.e. three sons

and two daughters of the deceased are adults. The respondents have further contended that the department had paid to the family of deceased

Government employee Rs.15,97,632/- as terminal benefits, i.e., DCRG, CGEIS, Leave encashment etc. and the family has own house costing Rs.23.6

lacs approx. and getting family pension Rs.9385/-+D Rs.7508 = Rs.16893- per month. Hence, they have rightly rejected the claim of the applicant no.1

for grant of compassionate appointment to applicant no.2.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on records.

The legal position is well settled that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the

requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of applications on merits. The underlying intention is on the death of the employee

concerned, his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crisis faced by them

on the demise of the sole earning member. In the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs.Shashank Goswami & Anr. reported as (2012) 11 SCC 307, the

Apex Court has observed as under:-

The claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is based on the premise that the applicant was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly,

such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and

permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service, and, therefore,

appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The claim of compassionate appointment in this matter has been fairly considered by the respondents as per the existing policy guidelines. Once the

respondents have fairly considered the application made for compassionate appointment, it is not open to the Tribunal to question the decision of the

respondents, except if they have not followed the rules laid down for compassionate appointment fairly.

Further in the case of Nanak Chand v. Delhi Jal Board, 2007(140)DLT 489, the Hon’ble High Court clearly held as under:-

“14. The mandate of the Supreme Court is very clear from the aforestated judgments that it is not for the High Court in exercise of its powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decision arrived at by the competent authority while considering the eligibility of an

applicant for appointment on compassionate basis and all it can do is to see whether the decision of the competent authority is vitiated. Having

scrutinized the cases in hand in the aforesaid background, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the findings of facts and the

conclusion arrived at by the competent authority.â€​

In view of the above, this Tribunal is unable to interfere with the impugned order and the OA has no merit..

However, this Tribunal is well aware that DoPT has issued a consolidated instructions with regard to compassionate appointments vide OM

No.14014/02/2012- Estt.(D) dated 16.01.2013. The applicants can, if he so desires, again apply for compassionate appointment as per the instructions

of the said OM. If any such fresh application is moved by the applicants, the respondents shall consider the same in the next meeting of the

Compassionate Appointments Committee in terms of the aforesaid OM and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicants within 60

days from the date of the decision of the Compassionate Appointments Committee.

With the above directions, the OA stands disposed of. No costs.