Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11671
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Dharamvir Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General (HR) – Respondent
OA No.3084/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prem Chand, Chander Bhan
For the Respondents: S.S. Hooda, Ayushman Aeron
Compassionate appointment is intended to mitigate immediate financial distress. Long-term survival of the family and possession of assets negate the claim, and equal marks in screening do not guarantee appointment if other candidates demonstrate greater financial urgency.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Financial Destitution - The primary objective of compassionate appointment is to alleviate immediate financial crisis; where a family has survived for a significant period (e.g., 9 years) and possesses immovable assets and bank balances, the claim for such appointment is not sustainable. (Para 6.3)
(B) Discrimination - Article 14 and 16 - Equal marks in a screening process do not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment if other candidates are found to be more deserving based on parameters such as the presence of minor children and the extent of service lost by the deceased employee. (Para 6.2)
Issues: Whether the applicant was discriminated against in the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment despite scoring equal marks to other selected candidates.
ORDER
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
(a) quash and set aside impugned order dated 23.06.2022 and the minutes of meeting dated 02.2.2022 of the Committee to the extent the applicant has been rejected for his compassionate appointment.
(b) Direct the respondents to re-consider the applicant for his compassionate appointment, keeping in view that he has been considered and found eligible and suitable but deferred by all the previous Committees in their meetings held on 30.10.2013, 16.07.2014, 08.1.2015 and 15.03.2018 against available vacancies for future year(s).
(c) cost of litigation.
(d) Pass any other and further order which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Factual matrix
2.1 Applicant’s father died on 01.11.2012 while in service. The wife of the deceased employee Mrs. Lalita Devi represented on 21.01.2013 to respondent No.2 for appointment of her son Shri Dharamvir, present applicant on compassionate grounds. The Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) held its meeting on 30.10.2013 and considered the case of all candidates including applicant. They noted that the name of the applicant would be considered for appointment in subsequent years subject to availability of the vacancies.
2.2 Again the applicant was considered in the next meeting of the DSC held on 16.07.2014 and the same recommendation was reiterated. The DSC for the third time considered the name of the applicant on 08.01.2015 and made similar recommendation as on previous two occasions. The applicant’s case was considered for compassionate appointment by the DSC for the fourth time on 15.03.2018. The said Committee deferred the case of the applicant for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. The DSC again considered the name of the applicant on 02.02.2022. Though the Committee considered seven candidates, they recommended five out of them for appointment as MTS, however, the case of the applicant was not recommended.
2.3 Based on the recommendations of the DSC vide order dated 23.06.2022 the respondent No.2 rejected the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. Being aggrieved, he has filed the present OA, seeking the aforementioned relief.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, to which the applicant also filed his rejoinder.
4. Submissions by the learned counsel for the applicant.
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant refers to DoP&T OM dated 16.01.2013 according to which a maximum 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group ‘C’ post are earmarked for appointment on compassionate grounds. Though the applicant has been consistently considered for compassionate appointment by the DSC from 2013 till 2022 on five occasions, however, the applicant has never been given the compassionate appointment. On first four occasions the DSC has also deferred the case of the applicant to be considered on next occasion, however, on the last occasion the DSC rejected the case of the applicant stating the following:
[[IMG_1]]
4.2 Relying on the aforementioned minutes of the DPC dated 02.02.2022, the learned counsel for the applicant states that applicant felt discriminated vis-à-vis other candidates who have been given appointment keeping in view the fact that the applicant scored 85 marks out of 165 marks and two more candidates have scored similar marks, i.e., 85 marks out of 165. However, they were offered appointment on compassionate grounds whereas the present applicant was not recommended on the ground that he and his family have managed to survive for long period and there is no immediate financial destitution and emergency in his case. Two more candidates, namely, Mr. Sumit Kumar and Ms. Smita were given appointments whos
