(Reserved on 02.12.2025)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Original Application No.1317 of 2018 Pronounced on this the 04^th Day of December, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Chandra Prakash Srivastava, aged about 37 years, son of Late Jamuna Prasad Tailor (C) Skill Ticket No.5541/L, R/o H.No.77, O Block, Deokinagar, Yashoda Nagar, District-Kanpur Nagar.

….Applicant By Advocate: Shri A.D. Singh Versus

1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.

2. General Manager, Ordnance Parachute Factory Nepiyar Road, Kanpur Nagar-208004, a unit of Gliders India Limited Regt. and corporate office.

3. Senior, General Manager, Ordnance Parachute Factory Nepiyar Road, Kanpur Nagar-208004 a unit of Gliders India limited regt.

and corporate office.

4. Additional Director, Ordnance Parachute Factory Nepiyar Road, Kanpur Nagar-208004 a unit of Gliders India Limited Regt. and corporate office. …Respondents By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai

ORDER

Present Original Application has been filed under Section

19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-

“i) Quash the impugned order dated 22.07.2016 and simultaneously order dated 09.01.1995 and 20.02.2018 passed by the respondent no.2,3 and 4 (Annexure A-1) to this O.A;

ii) Direct the respondents to reconsider the compassionate appointment of the applicant and provide the same under Dying-in-Harness Rules on any Group ‘D’ post at anywhere or found suitable against any posts without any discrimination and delay;

iii) To grant any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) Award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant, who was posted as Tailor (C) skilled in Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur under the control of the respondents, died while in service in a road accident on 20.07.1993 and left behind his widow and his legal heirs. The applicant was minor at that time. The mother of the applicant submitted an application before respondent no.2 on 03.01.1994 requesting to provide appointment on compassionate ground to her elder son (elder brother of the applicant) which was rejected vide order dated 05.02.1994. After separation from her elder son, the mother of the applicant again submitted applications on 18.06.1994, 10.10.1994 and 31.10.1994 before respondent no.2 and others, requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds to her younger son (the applicant) on attaining the age of majority. The applicant also sought information through RTI applications and then made a representation dated 24.06.2016 for compassionate appointment. Vide the impugned orders dated 09.01.1995, 20.07.2016 and 20.02.2018 the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned orders are non-speaking and have been passed without application of mind and without considering the indigent condition of the family of the applicant. The marks awarded to the applicant have been wrongly accorded and on the basis of the payment of the retiral benefits, his case has been rejected, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the applicant prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the applicant in view of the financial crisis in the family after the death of his father.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the request of the applicant’s mother for his compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that he got less marks in the score sheet (i.e. 40/100) and he had no liability and retiral benefits were also being paid. The applicant’s case has been considered on several occasions but he was not found fit. The order dated 20.02.2018 has been passed on the application of the applicant’s wife