Compassionate appointment is exception for immediate financial crisis post-death of employee; not vested right claimable after 18-year delay when crisis overcome; requires proof of penury and merit compliance.

ORDER

Heard Shri Subhash Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking relief for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s father employed as a Security Guard under the Respondent-2- Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Ijjat Nagar, District Bareilly and died in harness on 27.07.2006, leaving behind his widow Smt. Zohara Bano and three sons namely Anwar Ali, Asrar Ahmad and Norrain Ansari (Applicant). At the time of death of his father, both brothers of applicant were living separately from their mother and as such, the applicant’s mother submitted an application on 18.09.2006 before Respondent-2 for compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant.

4. In pursuance thereof, the Assistant Administrative Officer (Project Information Management System) issued a letter dated 14.12.2006, by which the applicant’s mother was informed that the compassionate appointment of her son Noorain Ansari (Applicant) had kept under consideration. Later on, the Assistant Administrative Officer vide its order dated 03.09.2009 had appointed one Mr. Himanshu Sharma, who was below in the list of compassionate appointment.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant’s mother again represented on 17.03.2011 followed by reminder before the concern of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. Subsequently, the respondents vide letter dated 23.08.2011 and 21.10.2011 informed the applicant’s mother that the compassionate appointment of her son is being considered by the concerned committee. Thereafter, the Assistant Administrative Officer vide its order dated 26.08.2013 directed the applicant to submit required documents in prescribed proforma, which was submitted by the applicant, but the case of the applicant was not considered whereas, the respondents vide order dated 20.05.2015 issued appointment order to eight candidates excluding the applicant.

6. Thereafter, the applicant again submitted a representation dated 10.01.2016 before the concerned authority followed by several reminders but no heed was paid. However, a notice was published regarding appointment of 18 dependents on compassionate grounds vide order dated 24.01.2018, but the name of applicant did not find place in the said list. The respondents while published said notice has not considered the fact that the applicant was at sl. no. 11 in the list dated 03.04.2014 with total marks 64 and in the same list another candidate namely Smt. Atarkali, who was at sl. No. 54 and got 64 marks, but she was appointed on 24.01.2018.

7. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicant has earlier approached this Tribunal, by way of Original Application No.316/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.03.2023 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant dated 10.01.2016 by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

8. In compliance thereof, the respondents have passed a detailed order on 16.05.2023, wherein it was informed the applicant that his case was considered for compassionate appointment, but the same could not be acceded due to his