2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6558
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
2546/2023
O.A./1353/2023
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Application for compassionate appointment - Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground dated 09.10.1998 - Principles of consideration - Financial condition of family - Terminal benefits - Family pension - Judicial review of administrative orders. (Paras 7, 8, 11, 15)
(B) Appointment on compassionate grounds - Nature and purpose - Compassionate appointment is not a vested right, only a limited humanitarian exception to the general rule of open competition - The primary objective is to provide immediate assistance to the bereaved family to tide over the sudden financial crisis arising from the loss of the sole bread earner - It is not intended to be a mechanism for securing public employment after a long lapse of time or as a matter of course, irrespective of the family's financial condition. (Paras 5.2, 5.7, 7)
(C) Compassionate appointment - Financial condition - Assessment - Terminal benefits - The 1998 scheme specifically provides for taking into consideration settlement benefits received and the status of family members - While terminal benefits and family pension are relevant to assess the financial condition of the family, they cannot be the sole ground for rejection - A balanced and objective assessment of financial condition is required. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11)
(D) Compassionate appointment - Delay - An application made immediately after death and persistently pursued through litigation cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the family has survived for a considerable period. (Para 7) (E) Compassionate appointment - Applicable scheme - The scheme in force at the time of the first consideration of the case is applicable, particularly when the applicant's case was first considered shortly after the employee's death. (Para 8) (F) Compassionate appointment - Consideration of application - Where an order of a court directs re-examination, the decision-making authority must consider all information it has requested from the applicant before making its decision - A decision based on a committee meeting held before the applicant's response was due is not legally sustainable. (Paras 13, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The applicant's father, a government employee, died on 03.06.2007. The applicant's mother applied for compassionate appointment for the applicant on 22.08.2007. The application was rejected by the respondents in 2008 and subsequently on multiple occasions. The applicant filed several Original Applications before the Tribunal, which remanded the matter for re-examination. In compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 16.09.2022, the respondents asked the applicant to submit information via a letter dated 12.04.2023, which the applicant did on 18.04.2023. However, the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) had already met on 16.03.2023 and rejected the claim, based on which the impugned speaking order dated 08.06.2023 was issued.
Findings of Court:
The impugned speaking order dated 08.06.2023, based on the CAC's decision in its meeting on 16.03.2023, is legally not sustainable because the CAC could not have considered the applicant's reply of 18.04.2023, which was requested in compliance with the Tribunal's order. The speaking order and the minutes of the CAC meeting are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case afresh, taking into account the applicant's application dated 18.04.2023 and the observations of the Tribunal regarding the applicable scheme, assessment of financial condition, and the requirement for a balanced and objective assessment.
Issues: 1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of the family's survival for a considerable period was justified. 2. Whether terminal benefits and family pension received by the family could be considered while assessing the claim. 3. Whether the scheme applicable at the time of the employee's death or at the time of consideration should apply. 4. Whether the CAC's decision, made before the applicant submitted the requested information, was valid and in compliance with the Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The financial condition of the family, including terminal benefits and family pension, must be assessed for compassionate appointment. (Paras 9, 10, 11) 2. The scheme in force at the time of first consideration of the case (2008) should apply, which is the same as the one at the time of death (2007). (Para 8) 3. A decision-making process that fails to consider information requested from the applicant, as directed by a court, is procedurally flawed and cannot be sustained. (Paras 13, 14, 15)
Result: Order dated 08.06.2023 and minutes of the CAC meeting on 16.03.2023 are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the applicant's case afresh within 120 days. The O.A. is disposed of. No costs. (Para 15, 16) Named entities excluded: VECC, Kolkata; Bhabani Prasad Hazra; Anjali Hazra; Suman Tiwari; Calcutta High Court; Steel Authority of India; Life Insurance Corporation of India; Canara Bank; State Bank of India; Haryana; Orissa; Rohtak; Silak Ram Keywords: compassionate appointment, dying in harness, financial destitution, terminal benefits, family pension, scheme applicability, judicial review, reconsideration, procedural fairness, speaking order main_legal_point: A claim for compassionate appointment must be assessed based on the financial condition of the family, including terminal benefits, but cannot be rejected solely on delay if the claim was persistently pursued. category: Service Law sub_category: Compassionate Appointment keywords: ["compassionate appointment", "dying in harness", "financial destitution", "terminal benefits", "family pension", "scheme applicability", "judicial review", "reconsideration", "procedural fairness", "speaking order"]
O R D E R
Per Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member:
1. This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised list dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and as no complicated question of law is involved, this matter is taken up for disposal.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):
“a. An order be passed by setting aside and/or quashing the order dated 08.06.2023 issued by the respondent no-3.
b. Direction be issued to the respondent to comply the direction passed in the order dated 16.09.2022 in O.A. No.- 350/1395/2016 in its true spirit and meaning.
c. Direction be issued to the respondent authorities to cancel/rescind the decision taken by the Compassionate Appointment Committee on 16.03.2023.
d. An order and/or direction be issued to the concerned respondent authorities to provide appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground.
e. And pass such other order or orders and/or direction/directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
3. Facts as narrated by the applicant are as follows:
3.1. The applicant’s father Shri Bhabani Prasad Hazra died on 03.06.2007 while he was working as Tradesman-E at VECC, Kolkata. Following the sudden death of the applicant’s father, the applicant’s mother Anjali Hazra wrote a letter on 14.06.2007 to the concerned respondent authority to provide appointment to any of her sons on compassionate ground. In reply to the said letter, the concerned authority asked the applicant’s mother to submit the application in the prescribed form. On 22.08.2007, the applicant’s mother submitted the application for compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant. As the authority concerned, after receipt of the application failed to give any reply, the applicant’s mother on 03.10.2008 wrote a letter to the concerned authority requesting to give appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the applicant. On 24.10.2008, the Administrative Officer-III intimated that after considering all relevant facts and data, they came to a conclusion that request for compassionate appointment made by the applicant’s mother cannot be acceded to. Thereafter, applicant’s mother again requested the authority concerned to provide compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant. However, the concerned authority repeatedly turned down the said request.
3.2. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the applicant filed O.A No. 1572/2015 and after hearing the same, the Tribunal on 18.11.2015 directed the respondent to pass a reasoned order within one month. A reasoned order was passed by the Administrative Officer-III wherein it was stated that the request of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be acceded to. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29/30.08.2016, the applicant preferred an O.A No. 350/1395/2016 before the Tribunal. On 16.09.2022, the Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to re-examine the case of the applicant in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pass a speaking and reasoned order within 03 months.
3.3. The respondent authority on 12.04.2023 asked the applicant to submit all the details along with form supplied by them. The applicant on 18.04.2023 has submitted all the necessary information along with form before the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities on 08.06.2023 passed an order stating that the case of the applicant has no merit and that there are no deserving circumstances to offer appointment on compassionate grounds and therefore the case is disposed of in terms of order dated 16.09.2022 in O.A No. 350/1395/2016. Hence this O.A challenging the speaking order dated 08.06.2023.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant’s submissions are summarised below:
4.1. The claim of compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that the deceased emplo
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
