Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11286
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Mallika Arya, Administrative Member
Adarsh Barai – Appellant
Versus
Comptroller and Auditor General of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 191 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Niramal Sharma
For the Respondents: Yogesh Singhal
Compassionate appointment is intended to relieve a family from immediate financial destitution and is not a vested right; it cannot be granted after a substantial period has elapsed if the family has survived, as the purpose of the relief is defeated.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Nature of Right - Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a vested right but a relief granted to enable a family to tide over a sudden financial crisis and relieve them from destitution. (Para 11, 12)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - Where the Departmental Screening Committee has followed due process and analyzed parameters based on government orders, the court cannot substitute its own opinion on whether the candidate is deserving. (Para 11)
(C) Delay and Livelihood - Lapse of Time - If the family of the deceased employee has survived for a substantial period after the death of the breadwinner, the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be granted as the emergency has passed. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to compassionate appointment after a substantial lapse of time since the death of the employee and after being found unfit by the Departmental Screening Committee.
O R D E R
By Mallika Arya, AM
The present original application has been directed against the order dated 08.11.2019 (Annexure A-16) whereby the mother of the applicant has been informed about closure of claim for appointment of her son on compassion-nate grounds. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after death of his father on 21.10.2012, the applicant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds in the proper format on 14.02.2013 (Annexure A-1). Thereafter, the applicant received several communications from the respondents i.e. 02.06.2014, 13.08.2014, 09.12.2014, 06.01.2015, 13.01.2015, 14.01.2016, 03.02.2016 etc. Each and every time his claim was declined on the ground of non-availability of vacancy. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that vide their last communication dated 08.11.2019, the respondents have closed the claim of the applicant (Annexure A-16) in a very casual manner. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that during all these years, the case of the applicant was never considered by the Departmental Screening Committee as there was no vacancy under dying in harness quota. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that non- consideration of the case of the applicant in accordance with relevant rules on the subject is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant as per rules.
Per contra, the respondents have filed reply raising preliminary objection with regard to delay in filing of present original application. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that since the closure of the claim of the applicant was informed to him vide order dated 27.06.2017, therefore, he was required to approach this Tribunal within one year from the date of the order dated 27.06.2017. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that despite the fact that there is an inordinate delay in filing the OA, no explanation has been given by the applicant for the same. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents has prayed to dismiss the OA being time barred.
On merits, based on the contents of the reply of the respondent, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the case of the applicant was considered in accordance with DOPT guidelines by adopting a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family taking into consideration its assets and liabilities as well as other relevant factors such as the presence of earning members, size of family, age of the children etc. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that on receipt of application for appointment on compassionate grounds, the case of the applicant could not be considered in the year 2013 due to non-availability of vacancy. Thereafter, in the year 2014, his case was considered by the Departmental Screening Committee (in short DSC) along with other candidates but he could not be recommended having lower merit position as there was only one post. Thereafter, the applicant’s case was considered by the DSC time and again on 19.02.2016, 21.04.2016, 30.08.2016, 09.12.2016, 13.02.2017 and 26.05.2017 but he could not be recommended due to limited number of vacancies and large number of applicants. Learned counsel for the respondents has also invited our attention to the marks awarded by the DSC on point wise criteria (page 9 of reply) and has submitted that due to limited number of posts, there being and more deserving candidates having higher points, the applicant could not be recommended for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the Court or Tribunal cannot give direction for appointment of a person on compassionate grounds but can merely
