Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
L Shahnas Beegum vs Home Affairs on 15 May, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No.181/00556/2024
Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. L. Shahnas Beegum, aged 38 years,
D/o. Late Ummarthakada Kunjikoya,
residing at "Lavanakkal", Androth Island,
UT of Lakshadweep - 680 552
2. P. N. Raidhad Beebi, aged 53 years,
W/o. Late Moosampathada Pookunji,
residing at "Puthiya Nalakam", Androth island,
UT of Lakshadweep - 680 552.
3. L. Shajina Beegum, aged 39 Years,
D/o. Late Thailath Nallakoya, residing at "Lavanakkal",
Androth Island, UT of Lakshadweep - 680 552.
4. P. K. Shahul Hameed, aged 45 Years,
S/o. Late Pathada Kidavu, residing at "Poodamkakkada",
Androth Island, UT of Lakshadweep - 680 552.
5. N.P. Mohammed Liyavudheen, aged 43 years,
S/o. Late Bainattu Sayed Mohammed Koya,
residing at "Neelathupura", Androth,
UT of Lakshadweep 680 552. -Applicants
[By Advocate : Mr. Shafik M. Abdul Khadir]
Versus
1. Union of India,
represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi 110 011.
2026.05.15
VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30'
2024.3.0
2
2. The Administrator,
UT of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti 682 555.
3. The Special Secretary (Services),
UT of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti 682 555.
-Respondents
[By Advocates : Mr. M.N. Manmadan, SCGSC for R-1 and
Mrs. Sreekala K.L., SPC for R-2 and 3]
The Original Application having been heard on 25.02.2026, the
Tribunal on 15.05.2026 delivered the following:
O R D E R :-
Applicants are the children or widow, as the case may be, of former casual labourers who had attained temporary status, under the Lakshadweep Administration, who passed away before they were confirmed in any Group D post. So the applicants approached the respondents seeking compassionate ground appointment which was not considered and thereafter they moved this Tribunal with O.A No. 391 of 2017 seeking a direction to the respondents to immediately consider their appointment in any appropriate vacancies of MTS cadre or equivalent post on compassionate grounds as per the scheme of the Government of India. The Tribunal by Annexure A8 order dated 31.01.2018 disposed of the Original Application 'directing to consider the claim of the applicants for 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 3 appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment under the category of those who are entitled to the benefit as available to Group D employees on regular basis'. Respondents were directed to issue considered orders in the cases of the applicants within two months of receipt of a copy of the order. That order was challenged in O.P(CAT) No. 105 of 2018. An order of interim stay was granted against the order of the Tribunal and ultimately by Annexure A9 judgment dated 11.06.2024, the respondents were directed to take a call on the directions of the Tribunal within a period of two months in accordance with law. That judgment was passed 'when the Hon'ble High Court was about to dismiss the Original Application with cost', then the learned counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration sought libertly to withdraw the Writ Petition. Pursuant to Annexure A9 order, Annexure A1/R2(e) order has been passed by the 3 rd respondent, which is the subject matter of challenge in this Original Application. The Applicants seek the following reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to A-12 and to quash A-1 being illegal;
(ii) To declare that the applicants are entitled for compassionate appointment in any appropriate posts, commensurate with their qualifications under the 2 nd 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 4 respondent;
(iii) To direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to immediately consider the appointment of the applicants in any appropriate vacancies in MTS cadre or Equivalent posts on compassionate grounds as per the scheme of the Government of India."
2. Admittedly, the applicants are the children/widow of former casual labourers, as the case may be, who attained temporary status on 01.09.1993. The father of the 1 st applicant had passed away on 01.06.2001. The husband of the 2nd applicant had passed away on 10.08.2003. Fathers of applicants 3 to 5 had passed away respectively on 04.12.1997, 10.08.2001 and 22.02.1994. All of them were granted temporary status casual labourers on 01.09.1993. All such casual labourers had started engagement with the Lakshadweep Administration during 1979-1981. The applicants' claim is based on Annexure A5 order of this Tribunal and Annexure A6 jugdment of the Hon'ble High Court that they are entitled to be absorbed under the compassionate appointment scheme in any of the vacancies. That representation was not considered and that made them to approach the Tribunal with O.A/391/2017 which led to passing of Annexure A8 order; as stated earlier, that order was disposed of with direction and ultimately by Annexure A9 judgment the respondents were directed to 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 5 consider the claims of the applicants.
3. On that basis, the 3rd respondent had issued individual notices to the applicants and after affording opportunity of being heard, the impugned order, Annexure A1/R2(e) was passed, which is under challenge. The relevant portion of Annexure A1 reads thus:
"8. Whereas the scheme for granting Temporary Status to Casual Labourers vide O.M.51016/2/90-Estt (C) dated 10.09.1993 states that, 'After rendering three years' continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on par with temporary Group 'D' employees for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group 'D' employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of their Department'.
9. Whereas, clause 6 of the said guidelines evidently states that, 'No benefits other than those specified in the Appendix will be admissible to casual labourers with temporary status'
10. Whereas in accordance with the extant instructions of GoI on Compassionate Appointment vide O.M. No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D) dated 16.01.2013, the scheme of compassionate appointment provides that "Government servant" for the purpose of these instructions means a Government servant appointed on 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 6 regular basis and not one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis.
"Confirmed work-charged staff" will also be covered by the term *Government servant' mentioned above.
"Service" includes extension in service (but not re- employment) after attaining the normal age of retirement in a civil post.
"Re-employment" does not include employment of ex- serviceman before the normal age of retirement in a civil post.
11. Whereas the applicants were engaged as casual labourers under the scheme formulated by the Lakshadweep Administration for engagement of casual labourers for a period of 89 days along with other casual labourers. However, the claim of the applicants for a compassionate appointment is not tenable though they may be the dependents of casual labourers (Temporary status) who died while in service before regularization of their Service. The said claim is beyond the scope of the scheme formulated by the Government of India and Procedure, Policy and criteria adopted by the Lakshadweep Administration vide Office Order dated 23.03.2018.
12. Now therefore, in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 11.06.2024 in OP (CAT) No.105 of 2018, the claim of the applicants for appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment has been heard, considered and could not be accepted by the administration in view of the aforementioned grounds."
4. Now the applicants submit that Annexure A1 order has been passed without taking into account the directions issued by this Tribunal in Annexure A5 order, Annexure A6 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, then 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 7 Annexure A8 order and A9 judgment of the High Court. It is ex-facie arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to law and that applicants are entitled to get benefits of compassionate appointment scheme and therefore they have approached the Tribunal with the aforesaid reliefs.
5. Respondents have disputed the contentions of the applicants. According to the respondents 2 and 3, the Original Application is not maintainable. At the same time, they admit that the husband of the 2 nd applicant and fathers of the other applicants were casual labourers under the Lakshadweep Administration, who were conferred with temporary status with effect from 01.09.1993 and had passed away while working as casual labourers with temporary status. At the same time, they contend that there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to appoint them under the compassionate appointment scheme. So the Original Application is sought to be dismissed.
6. According to them, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel & Training) have issued a scheme called 'Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993'. The scheme lays 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 8 down certain rights and liabilities and on that scheme or under the Annexure R2(d), Consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment, the applicants are not entitled to get compassionate appointment as their predecessors were not government servants or confirmed work-charged staff. The applicants are not entitled to get any such relief as claimed by them. The Annexure A1/R2(e) was passed after affording opportunity to the applicants as directed by this Tribunal which has been confirmed by the High Court.
7. According to the respondents, Annexure A5 order was passed for getting the compassionate appointment under the Postal Department. The order of the judgment would indicate that the Postal Department have their own scheme vide Circular No. 45-95/87SPB-1 dated 12.04.1991 for confering temporary status. As per the 1993 scheme issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, it is clear that the scheme is not applicable to the Department of Posts who already have their own scheme. The Annexures A5 and A6 were referred as guidelines for the temporary status labourers of the Postal Department which is not applicable in the facts of the case.
2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 9
8. As per the 1993 scheme, no benefit other than those specified is admissible to the casual labourers with temporary status. The said clause in 1993 scheme was not challenged in Court and is operational unless it is amended or deleted. Dependents of some of the deceased temporary status attained labourers have already been granted gratuity, as shown in Annexure R2(f) and (g). It was also averred that there is huge delay for considering the claim. According to the respondents, none of the applicants were engaged aganist any sanctioned post and none of them was appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of appointment. If they were directed to be appointed, it would amount to back door entry to service or a litigious employment which was depricated by the Apex Court in numerous cases. The appointment of casual labourers engaged otherwise than in accordance with constitutional scheme of employment itself would amount to violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to other similarly and identically situated persons. So the O.A is sought to be dismissed.
9. Against the reply, the applicants filed a rejoinder reiterating the contentions. According to them, the OP was withdrawn by them after eight 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 10 years and now they cannot be heard to say that the Administration has no liability to offer them employment. Payment of gratuity is not a bar for making compassionate appointment. Question of delay raised by the respondents cannot be considered since they had no such case in O.A/391/2017. Respondents are estopped from raising new pleas in the instant proceeding. Service of notice etc have been stated to wriggle out of the liability to pay cost.
10. We heard Sri. Shafik M. Abdul Khadir, learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. K.L. Sreekala, the learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration. According to Sri. Shafik, the Annexure A8 order was based on Annexure A5 order of this Tribunal, which stands confirmed by Annexure A6 judgment. That order has already been implemented. According to him, Annexure R2(i) judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in OPs (CAT) No. 133 of 2012 and 606 of 2012 have no application to the facts of the case. He reiterated that on the lines of Annexures A5, A6, A8 and A9, the applicants are entitled to succeed. Now the respondents can not raise the contention of delay since such a contention was not raised for Annexure A8 or earlier proceedings. On the 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 11 other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel, it is a highly belated claim. As directed by this Tribunal which has been confirmed by the High Court, Annexure A1/R2(e) order was passed after affording opportunity to the applicants and hearing them. The applicants are not entitled to get any such appointment on compassionate ground and therefore the Original Application is only to be dismissed.
11. As quoted earlier, the main reliefs are a declaration to the effect that the applicants are entitled to be appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme and to give a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the appointment in any appropriate vacancies in MTS cadre or equivalent post on compassionate ground. But after going through the records and also hearing the learned counsel on both sides, this Tribunal is not convinced that the applicants are entitled to get any such relief.
12. Firstly, the trump card of the applicants is Annexure A5 order of this Tribunal in O.A No. 999 of 2011 dated 14.08.2012. It is true that while rendering Annexure A8 order, this order has been given explicit reliance by the Tribunal. Still, I have my own doubts whether Annexure A5 order can 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 12 be made applicable to the facts of the case. O.A No. 999 of 2011 was moved by the widow of one V.Y. Babu, who was a temporary status conferred casual labourer in the Postal Department. As rightly pointed out by the respondents 2 and 3, Department of Post had their own separate scheme for granting compassionate appointment to a person who was granted temporary status. But here this Tribunal is concerned whether the scheme adopted by the DoPT is applicable to the Lakshadweep Administration. As seen in Annexure R2(c) which is the scheme issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DoPT (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation Scheme), it is clear that the fathers or husband of the applicants were granted temporary status on 01.09.1993 in terms of the scheme. Therefore, matters are governed by the scheme only and the applicants are not entitled to get any benefit beyond the same.
13. From Annexure R2(c), it is clear that such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not however be brought or to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group D post. Admittedly, husband or fathers of the applicants were not selected after undergoing regular selection process for Group D post. In 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 13 other words, they had passed away while working as casual labourers, even though temporary status was conferred on them. That means, the benefits as provided in clause 5 of the scheme alone can be given to them, which are as follow:
"5. Temporary status would entitle the casual labourers to the following benefits:-
(i) Wages at daily rates with reference to the minimum of the pay scale for a corresponding regular Group `D' official including DA, HRA and CCA
(ii) Benefits of increments at the same rate as applicable to a Group `D' employee would be taken into account for calculating pro-rata wages for every one year of service subject to performance of duty for at least 240 days, 206 days in administrative offices observing 5 days week) in the year from the date of conferment of temporary status.
(iii) Leave entitlement will be on a pro-rata basis at the rate of one day for every 10 days of work, casual or any other kind of leave, except maternity leave, will not be admissible. They will also be allowed to carry forward the leave at their credit on their regularisation. They will not be entitled to the benefits of encashment of leave on termination of service for any reason or on their quitting service.
(iv) Maternity leave to lady casual labourers as admissible to regular Group `D' employees will be allowed.
(v) 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularisation.
2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 14
(vi) After rendering three years' continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on par with temporary Group `D' employees for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group `D' employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of their Department.
(vii) Until they are regularized, they would be entitled to Productivity Linked Bonus/ Adhoc bonus only at the rates as applicable to casual labourers."
14. Similarly, clause 6 of R2(c) states that "no benefits other than those specified above will be admissible to casual labourers with temporary status. However, if any additional benefits are admissible to casual workers working in Industrial establishments in view of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, they shall continue to be admissible to such casual labourers".
15. The scheme also provides procedure for filling up of Group D posts. In this connection, sub-clause VI of clause 5, quoted supra, it is very clear that after rendering three years' continuous service, after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on par with temporary Group `D' employees for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 15 Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group `D' employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of their Department. There is no case that the husband or fathers of the applicants have ever acted, even as temporary Group D employees and therefore they are entitled to get benefits only under the scheme and not further.
16. The applicants have stated that dependents of the temporary status attained casual labourers are entitled even for grant of pension and compassionate appointment also to Group D/MTS posts. After three years of the conferment of temporary status, the casual labour is reckoned as on par with the regular Group D staff of Government, that all deductions relating to GPF and other contributions are made etc. The applicants do not have any case that the husband or fathers of the applicants had started contributing towards GPF or other subscriptions. They still continued as casual labourers and therefore only the benefit conferred under Annexure R2(c) can be claimed by them. That means, the applicants cannot claim better benefits.
2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 16
17. The contentions based on Annexure R2(d), Consolidated Instructions on compassionate appointment, also is very important and relevant in the facts of the case. As rightly pointed out, only a government servant or confirmed work-charged staff as defined in Annexure R2(d) can claim benefits of compassionate appointment. In Annexure R2(d), a government servant is defined as a government servant appointed on regular basis and not one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis. So the statements made by the applicants in paragraphs 4(4) and (5) of the Original Application are over- statements which cannot be accepted in right earnest. It is also important to note that clause 7(b) of Annexure R2(d) specifies that compassionate appointment can be made upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C' or Group 'D' post. Here the husband or fathers of the applicants had not reached any such post and therefore bereft of a vacancy arisen in Group C or Group D, as the case may be, cannot be extended to the applicants.
18. Annexure A8 order is the sheet anchor of the applicants. It is true that Annexure A8 was rendered based on Annexure A5, which was 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 17 confirmed in Annexure A6. But the Tribunal did not consider the aspect that Annexure A5 was rendered in the case of a postal employee who had separate scheme formulated by the Postal Department. It is different from Annexure R2(c). This aspect was not considered by the Tribunal while rendering Annexure A8. Whatever it may be, it has come out that the impugned order was passed after giving them opportunity as directed by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court. In my opinion, the 3 rd respondent has considered the claim of the applicants in right context and found that they are not entitled to be considered against any vacancy that has arisen in Group C or MTS for compassionate ground appointment.
19. Even otherwise, it has come out that the cause of action for the applicants for getting compassionate appointment had arisen on 01.06.2001, 10.08.2003, 04.12.1997, 10.08.2001 and 22.02.1994 respectively. That means, the oldest claim is more than three decades old. Many of the cases are more than two and a half decades old. Whether the applicants can maintain such a plea for compassionate appointment after more than two and a half decades or three decades is an important question. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect on 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 18 numerous occasions and said that the very purport of granting compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden crisis, to grant financial support to a family which suffered penury and financial stringency immediately after the unexpected passing away of the sole breadwinner of the family. Such a family should be given financial support and employment assistance immediately after facing the contingency. There is no meaning in claiming the benefit of compassionate appointment after two and a half decades or three decades of the passing away of the breadwinner of the family. The fact that they could pull on even without any such employment assistance for such a long period itself is an indication that they are not entitled to get any employment support. See the decisions in Government of India and Another v. P. Venkatesh [(2019) 15 SCC 613], State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653] etc. That means, a declaration or direction as claimed by the applicants cannot be granted. At the most, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal can only direct a consideration for granting employment assistance under the compassionate appointment scheme. That has already been done pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal and the High Court.
2026.05.15
VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30'
2024.3.0
19
20. I have already found that the Annexure R2(c) scheme is not applicable to the applicants. Similarly, their husband or fathers were not government servants as defined in Annexure R2(d) scheme. Therefore they cannot claim employment assistance as a matter of right, that too after long lapses of time. It is true that such a contention was not raised in the earlier proceeding, still the respondents are entitled to claim when the broader questions are agitated.
21. After evaluating the above circumstances, the applicants are not entitled to get any relief. The Original Application fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 15th day of May, 2026) JUSTICE K. HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER v 2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 20 List of Annexures Annexure A-1: True copy of the Order File No. 12/11/2018- Services/1466 dated 12.9.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent. Annexure A-2: True copy of the Seniority List of Agricultural laborers issued by the Department as per Letter F. No. 3/82-83/ADA dated 1.6.1982. Annexure A-3: True copy of the Letter F. No.1/9/2013 VDP(AND)/1534 dated 12.12.2013 issued by the Chairperson, Village (Dweep) Panchayath. Annexure A-4: True copy of the letter F. No.4/11/2012-DP-(Agri) dated 15.7.2014 by the District Agricultural officer. Annexure A-5: True copy of the order dated 14.8.2012 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 999/2011.
Annexure A-6: True copy of the judgment dated 27.1.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court in O.P. (CAT) No. 1/2014.
Annexure A-7: True copy of the Representation dated 17.10.2016 submitted before the 2nd Respondent.
Annexure A-8: True copy of the order dated 31.1.2018 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 391/2017.
Annexure A-9: True copy of the judgment dated 11.6.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court in O.P(CAT) No. 105/2018.
Annexure A-10: True copy of the Notice F. No. 12/11/2018-Services/1408 dated 27.8.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent. Annexure A-11: True copy of the representation dated 6.9.2024 submitted by the Applicants.
2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0 21 Annexure A-12: True copy of the letter dated Nil issued by the 3 rd Respondent.
Annexure R2(a): True copy of notice dated 27.08.2024 Annexure R2(b): True copy of notice dated 04.09.2024 Annexure R2(c): True copy of O.M. 51016/2/90-Estt(C) dated 10.09.1993 Annexure R2(d): True copy of O.M. No. 14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 16.01.2013 Annexure R2(e): True copy of Order F.No. 12/11/2018-Services/1466 dated 12.09.2024 Annexure R2(f): True copy of order F.No. 42/8/2024-Agri(Part) dated 05.08.2005 Annexure R2(g): True copy of order F.No. 42/8/2004-Agri (Part) dated 31.01.2005 Annexure R2(h): True copy of Notification F.No. 2/1/2012-DOP dated 07.03.2012 Annexure R2(i): True copy of the judgment dated 06.06.2012 in OP(CAT) No. 133/2012 and OP(CAT) No.606/2012 Annexure R2(j): True copy of representation dated 17.10.2016 Annexure R2(k): True copy of the order dated 31.01.2018 in O.A No. 391/2017.
Annexure R2(l): True copy of the judgment in OP(CAT) No. 105 of 2018 dated 11.06.2024.
2026.05.15 VISHAL 16:48:38+05'30' 2024.3.0