Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11252
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J, Pramod Kumar Das, A
Mary Goreti Lakra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 483 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Ray
For the Respondents: B. Dasmohapatra
Compassionate appointment eligibility is contingent upon the 'dependency' of the family member at the time of the employee's separation; the employment of a non-dependent sibling does not automatically disqualify other eligible dependents.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Dependency - Eligibility - A family member who was already employed and living separately prior to the employee's medical invalidation does not fall within the definition of a 'dependent' and therefore should not disqualify other eligible dependents from seeking compassionate appointment. (Para 21)
(B) Administrative Law - Model Employer - Consistency in Decision Making - Public Sector Undertakings, as model employers, are expected to follow the directions of Courts and Tribunals in similar cases to ensure fairness and avoid discrimination. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether the employment of an elder son who was not dependent on the employee at the time of medical invalidation can be a ground to reject the application for compassionate appointment of another dependent.
Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member, J.M.
The applicant challenging the Order of rejection for compassionate appointment dated 16.07.2021 (A/5) and Order dated 15.03.2022 (A/7) has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:
(i) The original application may be admitted and after hearing the counsels for the parties quash the orders at Annexure -A/5 and Annexure - A/7.
(ii) The respondents may be further directed to reconsider the application at Annexure -A/6 afresh for compassionate appointment after due enquiry into the matter as per the orders at Annexure- A/9 and Annexure- A/10 and proceed in accordance with the guidelines as per Annexure - A/8.
(iii) Any other appropriate order may kindly be passed which would be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
The fact of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that applicants No.1 and 2 are wife and son respectively of one Sri Herman Minz who was an employee of Rourkela Steel Plant was discharged from service on the ground of medical invalidation. It is submitted that, the said Herman Minz while working as Sr Technician, Rourkela Steel Plant was suffering from Heart & Kidney diseases submitted an application for medical invalidation to the authority. On receipt of the application, the respondent No. 3 intimated vide letter dated 23.12.2020(A/1) to said Herman Minz that in the event of discharge from service on the ground of medical invalidation, one of the dependent shall be considered for the employment on compassionate ground in terms of the personal policy circular No. 1007 dated 30.08.2011 and other Rules of the company. Pursuant to the letter as per Annexure - A/1, the applicant No. 2 submitted an application to respondent No.3 for employment on compassionate ground. Accordingly respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 28.06.2021(A/3) intimated the applicant No. 2 to report in the office of the respondent No. 4 on 06.07.2021 at 10 AM with required documents. In compliance to the above order, on 06.07.2021, the applicant No. 2 appeared before the respondent No. 4 and submitted all the documents along with an affidavit dated 17.06.2021 sworn in by the applicant No. 2 stating therein the details along with the monthly income of the applicants' family. But respondent No. 4 without considering the same in proper perspective rejected the application for compassionate appointment vide order dated 16.07.2021 (A/5) on the ground that the elder brother of applicant No. 2 is an employee of CISF under Govt. of India and as such the request for employment under compassionate ground cannot be acceded to. Being aggrieved with the above rejection order, applicant No.2 again submitted a representation to respondent No. 4 on 28.02.2022(A/6) and specifically stated that the elder brother Sri Manoranjan Minz though is an employee of CISF but he got the employment on the basis of his own merit long before the father of the applicant No. 2 declared medically invalid. Further after his marriage he is residing along with his family members in a separate mess since last 5 years without taking care of the applicant No. 1 and her family members. So reconsider the representation as submitted afresh after due enquiry into the matter.
It is submitted by the applicant that, despite above request the respondent No. 4 without making any factual enquiry into the matter vide order dated 15.03.2022(A/7) rejected the representation of the applicant No. 2. It is further submitted that, the respondents floated a Personnel Policy Circular No.1007 dated 30.08.2011 (A/8), guidelines for dealing with compassionate employment cases. The main objective of the guidelines is to provide relief/benefit to dependent family members of employees in case of death, permanent total disablement and medical invalidation. As per Clause 4.1 of above Circular the "Dependent Family Members" means (a)
