Compassionate appointments are exceptions, not rights, and should not be granted after significant delays, as they aim to alleviate immediate financial distress.

ORDER

The applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the respondent no. 1, have sought the following main two relief(s) in the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:-

“(a) To quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure A/1) and direct the respondent no. 1 to consider the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground;

(b) To direct the respondent no. 1 to produce all the records of the applicant put up before the screening committee for proper adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal and hand over one copy of the same to the applicant and also direct to the respondent no. 1 to provide the lists of all selected candidates by the screening committee.”

2. Brief facts of the matter is that the applicant’s father while working as ‘Sweeper’ under respondent no. 2 (i.e. G.B. Pant Institute), died on 17.09.2001. The applicant was only 17 years old at that time and hence, his mother has sought an appointment on compassionate grounds by way of a representation dated 29.07.2003. The respondents considered altogether 561 cases including the case of the applicant between 19.12.2003 and 12.01.2004 and recommended only 197 cases as deserving, not included the case of the applicant among the recommended 197 cases.

3. The respondents once again considered 486 cases including the applicant’s case between 13th and 26th July, 2005 but could not recommend the applicant’s case as they found 99 other cases as more deserving.

4. Again on a third occasion, on 26.09.2006, the respondents considered the 330 cases including the case of the applicant and could recommend only 54 cases but unfortunately the applicant could not be one of those 54.

5. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking relief(s) vide OA No. 4509/2017, wherein, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.04.2018 directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant before the next Screening Committee constituted for the purpose of compassionate appointment within a period of four months.

6. The respondents could not comply with the above directions of the Tribunal, resulting in the applicant filing a Contempt Petition No. 100/187/2019, which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.05.2019 directing the respondents to follow due process and complete the same within two months from the date of receipt of that order.

7. The respondents aggrieved by the order of the CAT, approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by way of a Writ Petition (C) No. 857/2020 and the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the petition on 24.01.2020 “with the direction to pass appropriate orders within six weeks from today”. In compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents have passed a impugned order dated 30.09.2020, once again rejecting the case of the applicant.

8. The chief ground taken by the respondents for rejecting the case of the applicant is that considerable time i.e. 19 years have already elapsed since the death of the Government servant and the scheme of compassionate ground exists in the Government to take care of the requirement of the immediate family of the deceased Government Servant due to the death of the bread earner. In the instant case, the applicant has survived for more than 19 years, and he has received all the due terminal benefits of family pension and his mother having passed away during the course of this litigation. As such, currently there is no family member dependent on the applicant.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant is aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondents and challenged thi