Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4171
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
D.S. Mahra, J
Abdul Rashid Mir – Appellant
Versus
D/o Agriculture Production Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
T.A./7928/2020
Mr. M.Ashraf Wani, Mr. Numan Idrees Malik, GA
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to general recruitment rules, contingent on immediate financial need, and not a vested right.
Headnote:(A) SRO 43 of 1994 - J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules - Petition for appointment on compassionate grounds rejected on age limit - The petitioner’s claim was denied as he was 37 years old at the time of his father’s death, exceeding the age limit for government service. The family received sufficient pension, negating the need for compassionate appointment. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Compassionate Appointment - It is an exception to the general rule of recruitment, aimed at providing immediate financial assistance to families of deceased employees. It is not a vested right and must be assessed based on current financial needs. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after his father’s death, but his claim was rejected due to exceeding the age limit and the family's financial stability.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not qualify for relief due to age restrictions and the family's pension income.
Issues: The primary issues were the eligibility for compassionate appointment based on age and the financial need of the petitioner’s family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compassionate appointments are not rights and should only be granted when there is a clear financial crisis, which was not present in this case.
Result: T.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.
D.S.Mahra, Member (Judl.) :- The father of the petitioner was working in the Sericulture Department of the respondents who died in harness on 28.04.2010. Petitioner, being the son of the deceased employee, applied for appointment on compassionate ground under SRO 43 of 1994. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on 19.06.2014 on the ground that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was 37 years 1 month & 19 days old. The respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the case was not covered under the relaxation policy adopted by the General Administration Department since the petitioner had already crossed the maximum age of 37 years.
2. The petitioner filed a writ petition, bearing SWP No. 1045 of 2017 before the Hon’ble High Court impugning the order dated
19.06.2014 which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA No. 7928 of 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground under SRO 43 of 1994 and was also eligible for the relaxation of age under Rule 7 of the J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules. He further submitted that the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner on wrong premises.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground but on the date of death of his father, the petitioner was 37 years 1 month & 19 days old, which was beyond the prescribed age limit for appointment in the Government service. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the appointment as per rules.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the deceased employee had left behind him three sons and the widow but the petitioner has not given the correct facts to this Tribunal. The family of the petitioner is receiving a good amount of pension and are not in financial crisis. Therefore, the element of compassion is not there.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
7. The law on the point of compassionate ground is well settled. It is an exception to the general rule that all the appointments should be made through open market after a competitive examination is held and the claim of compassionate appointment is an exception to this Rule. It is only given with a view to provide immediate financial help to the family of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwary & Ors.; Civil Appeal Nos. 8842-8855 of 2022 dated 03.03.2023 has summarised the legal position with regard to the compassionate appointment as follows:-
“7.2 On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:-
(i) That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provisions enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
(ii) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprive of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
(iii) Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
(iv) That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
(v) In determining as
