The main legal point established in the judgment is that the process for making compassionate appointments, including the inter-se assessment based on marking criteria by the Zonal Board, must be followed, and the family's financial situation and the time elapsed since the deceased's death should be considered in granting compassionate appointments.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioners Union of India and Ors. is to the impugned orders dated May 23, 2017 and August 21, 2017 passed in OA 367/2017 and in RA 186/2017 by the Central Administrative, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal', for short).

2. Vide order dated May 23, 2017, the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent and directed the petitioners herein to act on the recommendations made by the Board of Officers in September 2009 and grant compassionate appointment to the respondent against the post of Safaiwala/Mazdoor/Chowkidar within three months.

3. Vide order dated August 21, 2017, the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application filed by the petitioners herein.

4. The claim of the respondent before the Tribunal was for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected by the petitioners vide order dated August 29, 2012.

5. The facts as noted from the record are, the respondent is the son of Late Bishan Lal, Safaiwala, who died on February 26, 2008 while in service of petitioner No. 4. The request of the respondent was considered by the Board of Officers as constituted by the respondent No.3. The Board of Officers in the proceedings held in September, 2009 recommended the grant of compassionate appointment to the respondent.

6. Suffice to state, the recommendations state that the respondent is suitable for compassionate appointment in Group-D for the post of Safaiwala.

7. It is noted that the petitioners vide their letter dated March 7, 2011 informed the respondent that his name is being considered for compassionate appointment for the post of Safaiwala/Chowkidar and sought his willingness to any of the two posts. The said letter also contained a table which indicated that there were five vacant posts of Safaiwala. The respondent submitted his willingness.

8. The grievance of the respondent before the Tribunal was that instead of acting on the specific recommendations of the Board of Officers to grant compassionate appointment on the post of Mazdoor/Safaiwala/Chowkidar, the petitioners vide its communication dated April 28, 2012 has rejected the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment and also informed that his case will not be considered again for compassionate appointment during the next year.

9. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the deceased official's family consisted of his widow, three sons, including the respondent and a daughter. The respondent is already married and his family is not in penurious condition as assessed by the Screening Committee/Board of Officers.

10. It was further stated that his case has been considered by the Screening Committee at the Command Headquarters along with other cases. The respondent secured 66 marks viz-a-viz parameters prescribed for determination of eligibility for compassionate appointments in terms of indigent condition of the family. The cut-off marks of the last selected candidate was 78 and hence he has not been granted the appointment on compassionate grounds. Reference in this regard has been made to the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training dated May 5, 2003 wherein it is stated that the maximum time a person's name can be kept for consideration, for offering compassionate appointment will be three years subject to the condition that the prescribed committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of first and second year. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case will be finally closed and will not be considered again.

11. The stand of the petitioners was also that the offering of appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant is legally impermissible and also, cannot be granted after a lapse o