Compassionate appointment denied for belated claim (11+ years post-missing) where family survived on pension and incomes, negating immediate penury; not vested right, subject to policy on vacancies, ranking, and circumspection for delays.

ORDER

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“To call for the records pertaining to 2^nd respondent’s office letter dated 30.11.2021; letter of 3^rd respondent office dated 03.12.2021 and the 4^th respondent letter dated 20.12.2021 addressed to the 2^nd Applicant in the matter of compassionate appointment; set aside and quash the same to the extent of the case of the Applicant, duly declaring the mention in para 3 of the letter dated 30.11.2021 that the guidelines in circular dated 25.10.2021 that it is prospective in nature and applicable only to the cases subsequent to 25.10.2021 is unconstitutional; and direct the respondents to consider the case of the 2^nd Applicant for appointment under compassionate quota in MTS Cadre and provide the same forthwith and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.”

2. The case, as submitted by the Applicant, is as follows, in a nutshell:

i. The 1^st Applicant’s husband, viz., S.Narasimha, while working as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), in the office of the 4^th Respondent, went missing in 2004. The 1^st Applicant filed O.A.No.323 of 2015 in this Tribunal, as her representations, addressed to the authorities, were not being responded to in the matter of settling the pensionary benefits. This Tribunal, vide order, dt.10.03.2015, disposed of the OA, at the admission stage, with a direction to the Respondents to consider the representation of the 1^st Applicant and to release the pensionary benefits due to her, if she is eligible for the same, within a period of 4 weeks. Thereafter, the 1^st Applicant submitted a letter, dt.25.03.2015, requesting to settle the pensionary benefits and also to consider her son’s case for compassionate appointment. Pensionary benefits of the said S.Narasimha were settled in the year 2016.

ii. The 1^st Applicant pursued her request for compassionate appointment in favour of her 2^nd son, with the consent of her elder son and daughter. The 2^nd Applicant, who is the 2^nd son of the 1^st Applicant, applied for compassionate appointment, on 01.05.2017, referring to the ‘No Objection Certificate’ of other family members, pleading his indigent condition. The 1^st and the 2^nd Applicants sent reminders, separately, on 22.05.2017, addressed to the CPF Commissioner, New Delhi/R-2 marking copies to the concerned authorities. The then Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Hyderabad, sought details of the family members along with dependency status from the 1^st Applicant, vide letter, dt.23.04.2018. The 1^st Applicant submitted a letter on 02.05.2018, explaining the financial difficulties being faced by the family of the deceased employee, seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her 2^nd son. A query was raised by the 4^th Respondent office, vide letter, dt.25.07.2018, regarding the narrow age gap of 9 years, 1 month & 7 days, between the deceased father and the eldest daughter, to which the 1^st Applicant provided a reply in August, 2018.

iii. The office of the 2^nd Respondent issued a clarification on 25.10.2021, referring to the revised guidelines on compassionate appointments. The said clarification, inter alia, refers to Para 3 of the Circular, dt.25.10.2021, which states that in cases where an applicant is eligible for the MTS cadre