(Reserved on 08.01.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH (Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur)

This the 09^th day of January, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Original Application No. 361 of 2022 S.P. Jaisheree, W/o Late S.P. Jagannath Rao, aged about 53 years, presently unemployed, R/o Qtr. No. 26A, Road No. 54, Khursipar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G) - 490011. …….Applicant V E R S U S Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Udhyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.

1.

Chief General Manager (P), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G) - 490001.

2.

Advocate for the applicant: Shri A.V. Shridhar Advocate for the respondents: Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, holding brief of Dr. S.K. Pandey O R D E R By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM-

In the present original application, the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure A-1) by which her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been denied.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the husband of the applicant while on duty at Sintering Plant-III at Bhilai Steel Plant on 08.12.2020 met with an accident and dies on spot. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an application dated 04.01.2021 for appointment on compassionate grounds but without assigning any reason, her request was rejected by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 30.09.2021. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the rules. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the policy of the respondents itself, even the dependent of a contract worker is entitled for compassionate appointment, if the contract worker dies due to accident during work in the work premises, therefore, the claim of the applicant cannot be denied. The learned counsel further submitted that a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the claim of the applicant has not been considered as per rules and has been denied in a very casual manner and prayed that the order dated 30.09.2021 may be quashed and relief may be granted to the applicant.

3. Per contra, the respondents’ counsel referring to the contents of reply submitted that after the death of the applicant, as per rules, a departmental enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Committee which recommended that the dependents of the deceased employee are not entitled for any benefit as would accrue under the policies/practices and procedure of the company. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as per the inquiry report, the incidence took place not because of any accident since no external factor was involved, therefore, dependents of the deceased employee are not entitled for any benefit.

4. We have heard Shri A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, holding brief of Dr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. We have also gone through the pleadings and considered rival contentions.

5. The basic facts of the case that the husband of the applicant while on duty was died due to an accident. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted and vide inquiry report 27.02.2021 (Annexure R-1), it was held that no one can be ascertained responsible for the incidence and gave its finding regarding compensation as under: -

“individual Late Jagannath Rao was standing near lime tanker and suddenly his legs started wobbling and he fell on the back and sustained personal injury and died. This incident took place not because of any accident since no external factor was involve here. Therefore, his dependents are not entitled for any benefits as would accrue under Policies/Practices and procedures of the company.”

6. Based on the above finding of the Inquiry Committee, the respondents denied the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment vide order dated 30.09.2021. On perusal of this order, it reveals that the claim of the applicant has not been co