Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10801
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Om Prakash - VII, Member (J)
Vijay Bahadur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application NO. 330/00915/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Srivastava
For the Respondents: Raghvendra Pratap Singh
Compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment rules intended to mitigate immediate financial crisis; it is not a vested right or inheritance and cannot be claimed after a long delay.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Nature and Purpose - Not a regular mode of recruitment or a vested right, but an exception intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee to overcome sudden crisis. (Para 9, 10)
(B) Delay and Laches - Immediacy of Need - A claim for compassionate appointment cannot be made after a long lapse of time as the sense of immediacy is lost; such claims cannot be treated as a matter of inheritance. (Para 11, 12)
(C) Limitation - Repeated Representations - Subsequent representations do not extend the period of limitation nor create a fresh cause of action once the competent authority has already taken a final decision. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to compassionate appointment after a significant delay and whether the rejection based on the 5% quota was arbitrary.
(Reserved on 30.07.2026)
ORDER
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicantunder Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 07.06.2002 passed by respondent No. 2 Chief Engineer Lucknow Zone Lucknow 02 commanding respondentsauthorities to make compassionate of the applicant.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to respondents to take appropriate decision on the application moved bythe applicant for compassionate appointment.
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to award the costof this application in favour of the applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The applicant's father, Late Shri Ram Naresh, was a permanent Group 'D' employee in the Military Engineer Services (MES), Allahabad and died in harness on 28.03.1996. After his death, the family was left without financial support. The deceased was survived by his wife, four sons, and two married daughters. Since the applicant was the only suitable family member for employment, his mother gave her consent and submitted all required documents, including affidavits, death certificate, character certificate, caste certificate, transfer certificate and application for compassionate appointment in 1997. The applicant continuously pursued his claim for compassionate appointment by submitting representations and reminders from time to time. However, the respondents neither informed him about the status of his application nor passed any timely order. The applicant came to know only in May 2016 that his application had been rejected by an order dated 07.06.2002, which had never been communicated to him earlier. The applicant submits that the respondents acted arbitrarily by rejecting his claim without proper communication and by keeping him unaware of the decision for several years. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and grant him compassionateMANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA appointment in accordance with law.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, stating therein that the applicant's father, Late Shri Ram Naresh, died while serving in Garrison Engineer (East), Allahabad, on 28.03.1996. After his death, the applicant's mother, Smt. Bachi Devi, nominated the applicant for compassionate appointment. The applicant's case was processed in accordance with the rules and all required documents were obtained from time to time. The application was forwarded to the higher authorities for consideration. The respondents state that the applicant's request for compassionate appointment was considered sympathetically at all levels. However, the competent authority rejected the claim by order dated 07.06.2002 because no vacancy was available within the prescribed 5% quota for compassionate appointments. The rejection order was sent to the applicant at his home address and the position was again communicated through letters dated 12.08.2008 and 12.04.2016. The respondents further submit that no injustice was caused to the applicant as his case was examined strictly in accordance with the applicable policy. Since the rejection order became final long ago, the present Original Application has been filed after an unreasonable delay and is barred by limitation. Therefore, the respondents pray that the Original Application bedismissed.
4. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating theaverments made in the O.A.
5. I have heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for therespondents and perused the reco
