The main legal point established is that the entitlement to family pension and compassionate appointment should not be denied based on non-regularized service, and compassionate appointment is granted to mitigate immediate financial crisis.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

The present petitions have been preferred by the Union of India assailing the common order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application Nos. 461 of 2012 & 454 of 2012 preferred by respondent No.2-Jeewanti @ Jiwa Devi, wife of late Shri Gopal Dutt Tiwari.

2. The Tribunal has allowed the said Original Applications filed by her, and directed the petitioners to treat her at par with Smt. Chandra Devi Bhatt and grant her family pension as well as compassionate appointment to her son-Lalit Mohan Tiwari, if he fulfills all the eligibility criteria as per law. The petitioners were also directed to pay interest @ 8% on the delayed payment of family pension from the date of the entitlement till the date of actual payment within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

3. The impugned order has not been complied with by the petitioners during the pendency of these petitions, which have been pending since the year 2016.

4. The husband of respondent No. 2-Gopal Dutt Tiwari was initially appointed as a Chaukidar on 05.05.1985 by the Sub-Divisional Inspector, Nainital. He joined in that capacity on 01.08.1985 in Sub Post Office, Garampani as casual labour i.e. casual postal employee. Upon completion of three years’ continuous service, he was treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees, and was entitled to the benefits admissible to Group ‘D’ employees. Thereafter, he was treated at par with Group ‘D’ employees from 29.11.1992, even for payment of his salary. Since then, he was placed in the regular pay-scale of Group ‘D’ employees and was given all the benefits of revised pay-scale from time to time of Group ‘D’ employees, and drew his salary till July, 2004. He unfortunately passed away while in harness, on 21.08.2004.

5. Upon the demise of her husband, respondent No.2 sought family pension and compassionate appointment for her son. These reliefs were denied to her by the petitioners on the ground that late Shri Gopal Dutt Tiwari was not regularized in his service, and since he was not a regular employee, his successors were not entitled to family pension or even to claim compassionate appointment. Since the claim of respondent No. 2 was rejected by the petitioners, she preferred the Original Applications, in which the impugned order has been passed. Prior to preferring the said Original Applications, she had filed another Original Application being O.A. No. 1499 of 2011, which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to decide her representation. As that representation was rejected on 01.02.2012, the same was assailed in the Original Applications in question, i.e. O.A. Nos. 461 of 2012 & 454 of 2012.

6. Before the CAT, Respondent No. 2 cited the case of another similarly situated person to submit that in that case the petitioners herein had complied with the order passed by the Tribunal on 21.07.2000. That was the case of Smt. Chandra Devi Bhatt vs. Union of India and others. In that case as well, late husband of Chandra Devi Bhatt had joined the same Department, in the same capacity. Her husband had rendered sixteen years of service before dying in harness. Since she, too, was denied family pension and compassionate appointment, she preferred the aforesaid Original Application, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 21.07.2000. The petitioners herein accepted the order passed in the case of Chandra Devi Bhatt, and complied with the same and did not challenge the said order before this Court.

7. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the petitioners were seeking to discriminate against respondent No. 2 vis-à-vis the case of Chandra Devi Bhatt. In the case of respondent No. 2, her husband had rendered more than 19 years of continuous service, as compared to the late husband of Chandra Devi Bhatt, who had rendered 16 years of continuous service.

8. It is in the aforesaid light that the impugned order was passe