Compassionate appointment is not a right and must be pursued diligently; significant delays can undermine the claim.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Arvind Goswami, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri. A.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad, in Original Application No.330/00897 of 2019 (Shiv Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and another)

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 passed by Commandant O.D. Fort, Allahabad"

3. At the very outset, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by Commandant O.D. Fort, Allahabad was never challenged before the learned Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 has submitted that the impugned order 13.02.2017 was highlighted before the learned Tribunal and this fact was also noticed by the learned Tribunal that the said order was not challenged by the petitioner in the original application filed before the learned Tribunal.

5. We have gone through the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 and find that this is not rejection order, on the contrary, the impugned order seeks certain information from the petitioner, which was passed pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application No.1362 of 2016 on 06.12.2016 whereby the respondents were directed to pass afresh speaking order. In this order, again clarification was sought from the petitioner so that the matter may be finally disposed of and this order was admittedly communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, preliminary objection is not sustainable.

6. Facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner died on 16.04.2013 leaving behind his widow, three unmarried daughters and a son. It was projected that financial crunch of the family is subsisting and rather it has become worse. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment.

7. It is further reflected from record that an Original Application No.1104 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2015 directing respondent no.2 to decide application of the petitioner within two months. Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing the documents of service etc. but the same was not provided to him. The petitioner has again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.1362 of 2016 which was disposed of on 06.12.2016 directing the respondent concerned to pass a speaking and reasoned order. In view of the said direction, the order dated 13.02.2017 came to be passed by the respondent concerned demanding certain information again.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of such fact, no final order was passed and the claim of the petitioner was not considered, therefore, he was constrained to file Original Application No.330/00897 of 2019 with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue an order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds without any further delay.

(ii) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

9. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the learned Tribunal on the ground of delay is not sustainable in the eye of law as the petitioner has been pursuing his case since long right from beginning and no final order was passed by the respond