IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment should be sought within a reasonable period after the death of the employee to address immediate financial hardship.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral) - The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated July 31, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in OA No. 2124/2021, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner herein by stating in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:

"11. I have gone through the records of the case thoroughly and heard the argument carefully. In the instant case the Screening Committee has considered all factors as per the guidelines issued by the DOP&T vide their OM dated 16.01.2013. I agree with the averments made by the learned counsel for the respondents that claim for compassionate appointment is not a vested right by the legal heirs of the deceased government employee who dies while in government service. The immediate financial hardship of the family is the most important factor determining the claim of compassionate appointment. In the instant case, the application for compassionate appointment submitted by the applicant 9 years after the death of the deceased government employee. In view of this, the financial hardship of the family immediately after the death of the deceased government employee is ruled out. Moreover the Screening Committee is in the best position to have comparative view of deserving and less deserving candidates. The applicant has failed to produce any evidence showing any arbitrariness, malafide and biasedness on the part of the Screening Committee while dealing with the case of the present applicant. Moreover, the applicant has failed to produce any evidence or records showing that the candidates who are less deserving than the present applicant have been offered compassionate appointment.

12. In view of the position explained above, the present Original Application lacks merits and hence it is dismissed.

No order as to the costs."

2. The father of the petitioner had expired in the year 2009. He had applied for a compassionate appointment in the year 2009, but, on the asking of the respondent, he got a succession certificate from the Competent Court. The petitioner's case is, he had applied for the same and the same was given by the order of the Competent Court in the year 2014. The said order was under appeal before the Appellate Court till 2017.

3. The justification of the petitioner for approaching the Tribunal in the year 2021 was for the reasons stated above.

4. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the simple reason that the OA was filed in the year 2021 that is after four years from 2017. In any case, it is the conceded case of the petitioner that pursuant to the death of the earning member of the family, who was working in the Delhi Police, the family has got terminal benefits of Rs.9,03,520/- and the mother of the petitioner is also getting family pension.

5. Suffice to state, the purpose for seeking compassionate appointment is to tie over a situation which has arisen because of death of the earning member of the family. The fact that the employee had died in the year 2009 and the OA has been filed in the year 2021, it was too late for the petitioner to seek such an appointment.

6. We agree with the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal rejecting the OA. In regard to the aforesaid, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, 1994(4) SCC 138, wherein the Supreme Court in paragraphs 2 and 6, held as under:

"2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any othe