The court affirmed that an applicant for compassionate appointment must be evaluated transparently and may reapply if initially denied due to low merit points.

ORDER

Heard Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents in both the case at the time of hearing of the present cases.

2. Instant Original Application has been filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, by seeking following reliefs:-

8(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2023.

(ii) For a direction upon the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant give the appointment on compassionate ground at the earliest since the family of deceased employee is living in very hardship condition.

(iii) To issue any further order or direction in favour of the applicant, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the aforesaid case.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant namely, Shivraj while working as Electrician (SK) in the office of respondent-4 was died in harness on 23.10.2015, leaving behind his widow, five sons and one daughter. After the death of father of the applicant, the applicant represented before the respondents along with affidavits of other legal heirs and dependents of the deceased employee for grant of appointment on compassionate ground, but no heed was paid. Hence, the applicant filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5350/2022 before the High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.04.2022 with a liberty to the applicant to approach the concerned Authority by filing an application in prescribed proforma, which will be considered and decided by the concerned Authority expeditiously.

3.1. In pursuance thereof, the applicant again submitted an application on 26.09.2022 along with required documents before the respondents for compassionate appointment, but the respondents vide order dated 13.02.2023, it was informed to the applicant that the case of the applicant was considered in the yearly board for the year, 2021 and as the number of vacancies are very less in comparison to the number of applicants and as such, the name of the applicant could not find place in the list of selected candidate due to lower merit points. It was also mentioned in the impugned order that the applicant may again apply for employment under compassionate appointment Scheme in the next yearly board, if the applicant wish to, submission of fresh application along with requisite documents, through concerned dependent unit, is a must for consideration of applicant’s case in the next yearly board. The order dated 13.02.2023 is impugned in this Original application.

4. On the other hand, the Respondents have filed counter affidavit on 08.07.2024, wherein it has been stated that in view of limited number of vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment i.e. 5 % , the candidate having more deserving, recommended for appointment on compassionate ground. , the applicant could not be recommended for appointment on compassionate ground.

4.1. The family members, whose details are provided by the applicant in Original Application, nowhere declared by them in their respective affidavits that they are not earning their bread, whereas, the fact is that the family members of the deceased employee are major and are not dependent on the widow of the deceased employee. The daughter of the deceased employee is also married and as such, she is also not dependent on the widow of the deceased employee.

4.2 The pecuniary statues of the family of the applicant has been KUMAR MISHRA assessed by the Board of Officer in its meeting/proceeding convened by the Competent Authority Chief Engineer of Headquarters Central Command, Lucknow and awarded merit points as per Rule. Since the applicant was awarded less merit points, he could not be recommended for appointment due to non-availability of sufficient numbers of vacancies and present of more deserving candidates among the applicant. However, the respondent vide impugned letter/order decided to carry forward the request of the applicant fo