Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3386
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member
S.Laxmi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00519/2022
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.14, Art.16, Art.21
DoPT OM No.14014/02/2012-Estt. (D)
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Compassionate appointment - Belated requests require circumspection; family managing for years indicates dependable subsistence - Not claimable after considerable lapse post-deceased/missing event without explained distress - Prospective policies apply; prior pendency does not override saturation or penury criteria - Ranking among applicants determines eligibility under quota. (Paras 6, 10, 14, 18)
Facts of the case:
Wife and son of missing MTS employee sought quashing of rejection letters for son’s compassionate appointment to MTS cadre, claiming unconstitutional prospective application of guidelines despite pendency since 2015 and family penury. Respondents defended rejection due to delays, discrepancies, over-saturated cadre, family income (Rs.53,770/- monthly from pension and sons’ earnings), no minors/unmarried daughters, and applicant not in top 5 penury cases under 2024 Policy per Central Screening Committee minutes dt.15.07.2025.
Findings of Court:
Significant unexplained delay (11 years from missing, post-2011 untraced report and 2015 pension settlement); discrepancies warranted clarification; family’s prolonged survival negated sudden crisis; applicant ineligible under prevailing policies and not top-ranked in penury.
Issues: Validity of prospective guidelines applied to pending 2015 application; entitlement despite delay and family incomes; applicability of 2024 Policy ranking; constitutionality of rejection on saturation/penury grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment scheme targets immediate financial destitution from breadwinner’s death/missing, not belated claims after family stabilization via pension/other means; no vested right post-reasonable time; policies on vacancies, penury, and prospectivity valid; appellate re-examination upholds if not perverse.
Result: OA dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.R.K.V.Prasad
For the Respondents: N.Srinivasa Rao
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. family seeks compassionate appointment post-employee's 2004 disappearance (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. applicants challenge prospective application of 2021 circulars (Para 3) |
| 3. 2024 policy rejects belated claim due to family income (Para 6) |
| 4. applicants dispute income assessment; respondents defend policy (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court notes delay, discrepancies, and policy limits (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. dopt guidelines bar compassionate claims after reasonable time (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. oa dismissed for failure to establish penury claim (Para 19) |
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 2nd respondent’s office letter dated 30.11.2021; letter of 3rd respondent office dated 03.12.2021 and the 4th respondent letter dated 20.12.2021 addressed to the 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st Applicant’s husband, viz., S.Narasimha, while working as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), in the office of the 4th Respondent, went missing in 2004. The 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st Applicant pursued her request for compassionate appointment in favour of her 2nd son, with the consent of her elder son and daughter. The 2nd Applicant, who is the 2nd son of the 1st Applicant, applied for compassionate appointment, on 01.05.2017, referring to the ‘No Objection Certificate’ of other family members, pleading his indigent condition. The 1st and the 2nd 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 1st Applicant, vide letter, dt.23.04.2018. The 1st 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 2nd son. A query was raised by the 4th 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 1st Applicant provided a reply in August, 2018.
iii. The office of the 2nd 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
