##PAGE1##

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00740 of 2024 Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00740 of 2024

Dated, this 30th day of January, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

Vinay Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Vinod Kumar, R/o

Village - Kanni Khera, Post and Tehsil - Sarojini Nagar, Police Station -

Banthara, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

…..Applicant

By Advocate: Shri Neeraj Kumar Rai

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Science and Technology, New Delhi.

2. Director General, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research,

Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

3. Joint Director (Administration), Council of Scientific & Industrial

Research, Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

4. Director, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, National

Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, P.B. No. 436

Lucknow-226001 (India).

…..Respondent

By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

Shri Harsh Tripathi holding brief for Shri

Dharmendra Kumar Dixit

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

In this case relating to compassionate appointment, the applicant

has sought following reliefs:

“(i) Issue order or direction hereby setting-aside the impugned order dated

31.05.2024 passed by the compassionate appointment committee

which is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the Original Application.

(ii) Issue order to the respondents to consider the applicant for

appointment under Dying-in Harness Rules within a time bound period

on suitable post as per his qualification.

(iii) Any other order or directions, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem

fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in

favour of the applicant.

Page 1 of 6

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00740 of 2024 Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.

(iv) Award the cost of the Original Application.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant’s father died in

harness on 19.03.1995 while working on the post of Helper Grade-I

under the respondents leaving behind his wife and two sons, including

the applicant who was minor at that point of time. The applicant’s

mother made an application to the respondents on 07.09.1995 for

appointment of the brother of applicant’s father on compassionate

grounds which was rejected based on the meetings of the

Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 25.05.2000 and

17.11.2000 on the ground that deceased employee’s brother was not

covered in the definition of family for the purpose of compassionate

appointment. The applicant’s mother made another application on

22.09.2005 for appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground

which was rejected on 27.01.2006. Thereafter, the applicant’s mother

submitted application dated 06.05.2022 which was rejected on

23.08.2024 based on the meeting of the Compassionate Appointment

Committee held on 30.07.2024. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred

this OA.

3. The applicant’s contention is that her mother was never

informed about the rejection of case of compassionate appointment of

her brother-in-law. In regard to rejection of his compassionate

appointment by the respondents, the applicant contends that such

rejection is unsustainable for having been made on technical ground

without due application of mind. It is further averred that the applicant

has been discriminated against in that the dependents of employees

who died much after his father have been recommended for

appointment while his case has been rejected.

Page 2 of 6

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00740 of 2024 Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.

4. Per contra, the respondents contend that their decision is based

on the extant instructions on compassionate appointments issued by

the Department of Personnel & Training and the Council of Scientific &

Industrial Research and that it is in conformity with the ratio in Local

Administration Department vs M Selvanayagam (Civil Appeal No.

2206 of 2006) 2011 (13) SCC 42 decided