Marital status of dependents cannot disqualify them from compassionate appointment; rejections must be reasoned and in line with established rules.

ORDER

Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Deo Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. A-1 to this Original Application with compilation No. I)

(ii) This Honb’le Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant for grant of compassionate appointment as per rule.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 by way of which his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected by the respondents citing the ground that both the sons of the late employee are married and matured. The applicant seeks quashing of the above impugned order with a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds.

4. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant’s father late Ram Mahesh who was a regular employee in the respondents’ department, passed away on 01.01.2024 in harness leaving behind his widow Tara Devi and two sons namely Tribhuwan Nath (the applicant) and Shiv Bhawan. After the death of his father, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment with the consent of the other family members. It was further argued that the applicant belongs to Scheduled caste category and his family is not having any regular source of income to sustain their livelihood. Learned counsel further argued that the respondents turned down the request of the applicant vide a cryptic and non- speaking order dated 22.02.2024 only on the ground that both the sons of the deceased employee are married and matured. It is further argued that the impugned order is unreasonable as it does not disclose the weightage points allowed to the applicant under different heads. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the family benefits / benefits given upon the death of the employee cannot be in any way equated with the compassionate appointment. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to allow the OA thereby quashing the cryptic impugned order and directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions of the applicant’s counsel and by way of his counter affidavit submits that the case of the applicant was considered by the respondents’ committee in light of the existing rules and provisions but for several reasons, his case was rejected. The first reason is that when the father of the applicant had died, only 01 month and 28 days were remaining to his retirement. Secondly, both the sons of the deceased employee including the applicant are married and mature and thirdly, all the consequential service dues pertaining to the late employee have been paid to his family. Thus, learned counsel argued, the case of the applicant was rightly rejected and therefore prayer was made to dismiss the OA as being devoid of merits.

7. Learned counsel for the appli