Compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service, and it is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future. The financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and the passage of time since the death are crucial factors in determining the eligibility for compassionate appointment.

Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Employment Assistance - [National Coal Wage Agreement, Rules-7 and 8, OM No. 14014/19/2002, Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, Shashi Kumar] - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement, Rules-7 and 8, and OM No. 14014/19/2002, and cited various judgments including Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, and Shashi Kumar to establish that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service. The court emphasized the need for immediacy in providing compassionate appointment and highlighted that it is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future. The court also considered the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and the passage of time since the death in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father, a permanent vehicle mechanic in 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad Fort, died in harness, and the petitioner sought compassionate appointment for employment assistance. The respondents rejected the petitioner's request multiple times, citing inadequate vacancies and the passage of more than 25 years since the death of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected by the respondents and the Central Administrative Tribunal, considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and the passage of time since the death. The court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment for employment assistance, considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and the passage of time since the death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service. It emphasized the need for immediacy in providing compassionate appointment and highlighted that it is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future. The court also considered the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and the passage of time since the death in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad, in Original Application No. 330/01292 of 2019 Sandeep Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India and orders dated 20.06.2002, 01.07.2002, 30.09.2003 and 10.09.2019 passed by respondent no. 3 and consequential directions passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. Facts of the case is that the father of the petitioner who was a permanent vehicle mechanic in 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad Fort, Allahabad died in harness on 05.12.1998 leaving behind his wife Leelawati and four daughters and three sons. Subsequently, the mother of the petitioner has moved an application to the Director General, Army Head Quarter, New Delhi for consideration of the appointment on compassionate ground to anyone of the members of the family of the deceased. Pursuant to the said application, the Commandant & M.D. 508, Army Base Workshop, Allahabad Fort Allahabad has requested the mother of the petitioner for sending complete documents to register name of the eldest son Sudeep Kumar Yadav for employment assistance in the office. The petitioner has complete all requisite formalities in compliance of the letter dated 26.02.1999 before third respondent. Subsequently, third respondent also made correspondence directing the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents. Accordingly, the petitioner complied with the letter dated 11.12.1999.

4. That being so, the respondents arbitrarily and illegally without considering financial condition of the family of the deceased refused to accept the request and passed the impugned orders 20.06.2002/01.07.2002. While passing the said orders, the respondents have not disclosed details of merit list of all the candidates considered by the Board during June 2001, September 2001, December 2001 and March 2002. Hence the petitioner was not able to know correct position of the merit list. As against the said order, the mother of the petitioner has preferred appeal/representation on 11.12.2002 and 19.12.2002 requesting for giving employment to her son on compassionate ground. Considering the said request, the respondents again vide order dated 30.09.2003 rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground saying that the case of the petitioner has already been rejected vide orders dated 20.06.2002/01.07.2002.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has moved a civil misc. writ petition no. 40017 of 2004 before this Court and challenged the said rejection orders. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy vide order dated 28.09.2018.

6. After that, the petitioner has received one more letter dated 14.11.2018 from third respondent whereby he demanded certain documents for consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground and the petitioner has submitted further documents in support of the request made by third respondent vide letter dated 20.12.2018. The petitioner has further received a letter dated 27.03.2019 whereby he was directed to complete certain formality for sending the matter to the Army Head Quarter and further the petitioner received a letter from third respondent on 10.09.2019 whereby the Board of Officers as per the guidelines/instructions issued by the Government of India has examined the case of the petitioner and found that due to constraints of inadequate vacancies and also due to not make up in relative merit against the ceiling of 5% quota, the petitioner has not been selected. Consequently, left with no option, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad questioning the orders passed