IMPORTANT POINT
Stale claims should not be entertained.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Leave granted.

2. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by its judgment dated 9 August 2016, issued a mandamus, while setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and directed the appellants to grant appointment on a compassionate basis to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of the order.

3. The father of the respondent, who was working in the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, died on 25 May 1996. The widow of the deceased employee made a representation for compassionate appointment. On 3 January 1997, the representation submitted by her was rejected. Thereafter, a fresh representation was made, which was considered and rejected in the Minutes of a Meeting held on 1st July 1999, which considered similar requests by several other employees.

4. In 2007, the respondent initiated proceedings [OA 430 of 2007] before the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 26 June 2007, directed the appellants to consider the representation of the respondent dated 14th February 2006 by a speaking order. The OA was disposed of. Accordingly, on 13th November 2007, a speaking order was passed rejecting the representation.

5. The respondent then filed another OA[OA 1389 of 2010] before the Tribunal on which an order was passed on 16th March 2011 directing the appellants to dispose of the representation after re-consideration. Again, when the claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on 25th August 2011, the respondent moved the Tribunal in a third OA[OA 183 of 2012]. The Tribunal dismissed the OA by an order dated 30 April 2013, holding that the claimant was not eligible under the Scheme [DOP&T OM No.14014/3/2011 - ESST(D) dated 26.07.2012] under which the maximum period for which the name of a candidate for compassionate appointment could be kept for consideration was three years.

6. Following the order of the Tribunal, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in which the impugned order has been passed, setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal and granting a mandamus for appointment on a compassionate basis. The High Court observed, after perusing the record, that though the representation had been rejected on the ground that the elder brother of the respondent was gainfully employed, as a matter of fact, his salary certificate indicated that he was working on a daily wage basis.

7. We have heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Aravindh S., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

The primary difficulty in accepting the line of submissions, which weighed with the High Court, and were reiterated on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings, is simply this: Compassionate appointment, it is well-settled, is intended to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. If the facts of the present case are seen, it is evident that even the first recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set of representations had been rejected on 3 January 1997. The Tribunal, unfortunately, passed a succession of orders calling upon the appellants to consider and then re-consider the representations for compassionate appointment. After the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting rejected the representation on 13 November 2007, it was only in 2010 that the Tribunal was moved again, with the same result. These successive orders of Tribunal for reconsideration of the representation cannot obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the Tribunal for compassionate appointment over a decade after the death of the deceased employee. This 'dispose o