Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and should be made in accordance with the rules, regulations, or administrative instructions considering the financial condition of the deceased's family. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should be provided immediately to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the breadwinner in the family.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

(1) Heard Shri Asit Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Gyanendra Singh Sikarwar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Dr. V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1- Dilip Singh.

(2) In Writ-A No. 12936 of 2021, the B.S.N.L. authorities/ petitioners have questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application No. 332/00002/2016 preferred by the respondent no.1 and set-aside the orders dated 10.11.2014 and 19.11.2012, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of respondent no.1, and has also directed the petitioners to grant appointment to the applicant/respondent no.1 in the light of findings/observations made in the said judgment within a period of six weeks. Petitioners have also assailed the judgment and order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the Review Application No.332/0002/2020 seeking review of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 19.07.2019, which was rejected by the Tribunal both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

(3) In the Second Writ Petition, namely, Writ-A No. 2613 of 2023, B.S.N.L. authorities/petitioners have questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal in M.A. No. 2652 of 2019 (Execution Application) in Re: O.A. No. 2 of 2016 : Dilip Singh Vs. Union of India, whereby the Tribunal has directed to attach the pay of the petitioners (respondent nos. 2 and 3 in aforesaid execution application) until further orders or when compliance is filed, whichever is earlier, or receipt of appropriate order from the Hon’ble High Court.

(4) Since the above-captioned writ petitions arise out of a common factual matrix and law, both the writ petitions have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

FACTUAL MATRIX

(5) Succinctly, the facts of the case are that Shri Jai Narayan Singh, father of respondent no.1, was working as Phone Mechanic in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.S.N.L.’) and while working, he died on 09.09.2007 leaving behind his wife Smt. Kushla Singh, two sons, namely, Dalijeet Singh and Dilip Singh (respondent no.1 herein) and a daughter. Soon thereafter, wife/widow of the deceased employee (mother of respondent no.1) applied for compassionate appointment, however, subsequently, due to ill-health, wife of the deceased employee submitted an application in January, 2010, seeking to consider her son for appointment on compassionate ground in her place, which was eventually rejected by means of order dated 19.11.2012.

(6) Not being satisfied with the aforesaid order dated 19.11.2012, the respondent no.1-Dilip Singh (son of the deceased employee) submitted a representation on 03.12.2012, seeking reconsideration of his appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mukesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and others : (2007) 8 SCC 398 as well as judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in the matter of E. Dilip, but as no heed was paid, respondent no.1 had approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 173 of 2013.

(7) During pendency of the aforesaid Original Application No. 173 of 2013, the aforesaid representation dated 03.12.2012, submitted by the respondent no.1 for compassionate ground appointment was considered and rejected by the authorities of the B.S.N.L. by means of order dated 10.01.2014. Consequently, the respondent no.1 sought amendment in the aforesaid original application, however, as the amendment so sought for by the respondent no.1 would had changed the nature of the case, hence on the request of respondent no.1, the Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid original application vide order dated 11.12.2015 as withdrawn with liberty to respondent no.1 to file fr