Compassionate appointment cannot be sought for another family member once a previous application for a member of the same family has already been considered and rejected on the grounds of merit and vacancy availability.

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (Judicial):

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:

“(i) To quash/ set aside the impugned order No.15000/BOO-2016-17/Vol-II/185/E1B(S) dated 25.02.2021 (Annexure A-1) and direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant no.2 for appointment on compassionate grounds as sufficient number of vacancies are available with the respondents.

(ii) To declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the applicant on compassionate grounds as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and issue appropriate consequential directions for considering the claim of applicant on compassionate ground against suitable posts with all consequential benefits.

(iii) To call for the relevant original record pertaining to this case as well as board of officers proceedings including the recommendations on the basis of which the impugned order dated 25.02.2021 (A-1) is passed by the respondents.

(iv) To allow the OA with cost.

(v) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the OA has been filed by the widow and the daughter of the deceased employee namely, M. C. Saxena. The deceased employee was serving as Refrigerator Mechanic and had expired in harness on 15.01.2010. Thereafter, in April 2010, the widow of deceased employee applied for appointment on compassionate grounds for her son, since the deceased employee expired leaving behind four daughters, a son and a widow. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents were required to consider the case for compassionate appointment for widow’s son. However, when nothing has been done, the applicant had visited the office of the respondents and had been pursuing the same but she was not given any proper response. Thereafter, in the year 2018, the applicant approached the respondents by filing another application and this time, she sought compassionate appointment for her daughter. She received a response dated 20.10.2018 by the respondents.

3. The applicant then approached this Tribunal in OA/3134/2019, which was disposed of vide Order dated 23.10.2019 challenging the order dated 20.10.2018, whereby the applicants were informed that there case will be considered when the instructions will be received from the Headquarters in the next Board meeting. Considering the same, the said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant no.2, i.e. the daughter of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment in terms of DoP&T's OM of 16.01.2013 and also to inform the applicant of the decision of the said Committee. Now the present OA has been filed once again seeking same relief.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents could have informed the applicant No.1 of the consideration of case of her daughter for compassionate appointment as a bare minimum, but they have not done so and have passed a speaking order dated 25.02.2021 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present case. Thus, the case of the applicant’s daughter for compassionate appointment was rejected on two grounds that (i) the application for appointment has been put up after five years of the death of the deceased employee; and (ii) due to non-availability of sufficient vacancies. Learned counsel further contends that the case of the applicant No.2/daughter of