Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Usha Pandey vs S I B on 4 August, 2025
O.A./115/2023
(Reserved on 30.07.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.115 of 2023
Pronounced on this the 04th Day of August, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
1. Usha Pandey, aged about 57 years, W/o Late S. S. Pandey,
R/o-587, Ram Jankipuram Korsand, Jam Jankipuram,
District-Allahabad.
2. Shivangi Pandey, aged about 24 years, D/o Late S. S. Pandey,
R/o-587, Jam Jankipuram, District-Allahabad.
....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Tiwari
Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Subsidiary Intelligence
Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs), Lucknow.
2. The Deputy Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of
Home Affairs), Lucknow.
3. The Assistant Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (Ministry
of Home Affairs), Lucknow.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vimal Kumar Rai
ORDER
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
"1. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 passed by respondent no. (Annexure No. A-1 to this original application in Compilation No.-I).
2. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and give the compassionate appointment to the applicant no.2 Digitally MADHU signed by Page 1 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 at the earliest since the family of the deceased employee is leaving in very hardship condition.
3. To issue any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. To award the cost of the application throughout."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of applicant no.1 was working on the post of Assistant Director in the Department and he expired on 22.11.2018 due to multiple organ failure. After his death, applicant no. 1 submitted the request for compassionate appointment for her daughter i.e. applicant no. 2 on prescribed format. When no action was taken by the respondents, the applicant filed an original application before the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal i.e. O.A. No. 249 of 2021 (Usha Pandey & Another Vs Union of India & Others). The aforesaid original application was finally heard on 18.05.2022 and the Tribunal disposed of the original application after quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 and remanded back the matter to the competent authority/ respondents to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months. The aforesaid order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Lucknow Bench was communicated to the competent authority/ respondents for their consideration and decision. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 23.06.2022, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed that the impugned order has been passed without considering the liabilities of the family. The condition of the family of the deceased employee is very poor but an arbitrary order has been passed rejecting the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that that the respondents should be directed to fairly assess the case of the applicant and pass necessary orders imparting justice to the family of the deceased employee in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the Tribunal in the matter of Digitally MADHU signed by Page 2 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 Mukesh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar Pal respectively. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar specifically held that material on which conclusion has been arrived at by the committee meant for the purpose of consideration of compassionate appointment have to be brought on record. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied on the judgement of the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./42/2015 (Gyanendra Pratap Singh vs. BSNL) dated 11.03.2016. It is further argued that in the case of Balvir Kaur & Another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others pronounced on 05.05.2000, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the family benefit scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants has argued that from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 it is crystal clear that the answering respondent failed to apply judicious mind and unlawfully rejected the claim of the applicant in a mechanical way.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that Sh.
Shyam Shankar Pandey, ex-AD/Exe of BOI Lucknow expired on 22.11.18 (at the age of 55 years & 10 months) leaving behind his wife, 3 daughters (1 married, 2 unmarried), minor son & old aged mother. Subsequently, Smt. Usha Pandey (w/o deceased Govt. servant and hereafter called as Applicant-1) requested for compassionate appointment of her second daughter Ms. Vandita Pandey in IB. The case of Ms. Vandita Pandey was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) of IB on 23.8.2019. However, the same was not recommended for appointment as the family was not found indigent. Applicant-1 vide application dated NIL requested to re- consider the case for compassionate appointment of her daughter Ms. Vandita Pandey. Her request was re-submitted to the CAC on 29.1.2020 which, this time too, did not find the family in abject poverty and it did not recommend her compassionate appointment. While arriving at the decision in her case, the CAC considered the facts that the family had received terminal benefits of Rs. 50,19,600/-
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 3 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 (DCRG-2000000/-, GPF- 1608749/-, CGEGIS-168749/-, EL-932102/-, IBRF-200000/-, DLIS-60000/-, LIC-50000/-), receiving monthly pension of Rs. 59,202/- (Rs. 42,900/- + DR@38%), owns a house of market value of Rs. 50,00,000/- and some agricultural land in the village. Thereafter applicant-1 submitted another application in July 2020 requesting for compassionate ground appointment of her youngest daughter Ms. Shivangi Pandey (hereafter called as Applicant-2) in place of Ms. Vandita Pandey citing the reason that Ms. Vandita Pandey (employed, living separately in Bangalore) has distanced herself from the family and cannot provide any financial support. Her request was duly examined but the family could not get a favorable outcome as the case in respect of one family member had already been decided. Applicant-1 was informed in this regard on 27.11.2020.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the objective of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency (para 1 of DoP&T O.M. No. 14014/02/2012-Estt. (D) dated 16.1.2013). The eligibility criteria for considering such requests is that the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution (para 5 of DoP&T O.M. No. 14014/02/2012- Estt.(D) dated 16.1.2013). The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 4.5.94 in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others [1994(3) JT S.C. 525] held that offering compassionate appointments as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family is legally impermissible. Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court, Madurai Bench vide order dated 19.6.2019 in the case of Arun Kumar Vs the Secretary to Govt. held that 'mere death of a Govt. employee in his harness, does not entitle the family to claim compassionate Digitally MADHU signed by Page 4 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 appointment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family of the deceased employee.' The order dt. 23.6.2022, was issued in light of prevailing guidelines/instructions contained in the Scheme for compassionate appointment dated 16.1.2013 and after detailed examination of the applicant's financial condition & other criterion in this regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006 filed by Local Administrațion Department vs. M. Selvanayagam @Kumaravelu has observed that "an appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind".
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that Para 18 (c) of the Scheme of compassionate appointment dated 16.1.2013 emphasizes that while considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities, including the benefits received under various welfare schemes of the govt. and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an of earning member, size of family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family, etc. While taking decision on the request of compassionate appointment of Ms. Vandita Pandey/Applicant-2, Respondents took into consideration terminal benefits/pension received by the family but it was not the only factor for denying their request. Respondents assessed their overall financial condition which Digitally MADHU signed by Page 5 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 included assets possessed by the family, liability resting with the family, presence of earning members, pension received by the family, size of the family etc. The Hon'ble CAT Ernakulum Bench, Ernakulum vide order dated 12.1.2023 in the case of M.R. Rajeev Nair Vs UOI & ors has upheld that benefits under various welfare schemes are also to be considered, while having a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition, though it cannot be the sole reason for rejecting the request. The relevant part of above judgment is reproduced below:-
"6. This clearly shows that the amounts benefits under the various welfare schemes are also liable to be considered, while having a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition, though it cannot be the sole reason for rejecting the request.
7. The Committee had taken note of the fact that the family had received terminal benefits of Rs.9,32,760/- and was receiving total pension of Rs. 67,144/- pm from the Intelligence Bureau and from the Army put together. They also possessed own house which was valued at Rs. 16 lakhs and 60 cents of land, which was valued at Rs. 8,55,000/-. Further, the family also owned a Car and a Scooty. It was also taken note that the daughter was already married and was living separately. With no major liability, it concluded that the assets and liability were no longer meager so as to declare the family in penury."
9. The scheme of compassionate appointment was considered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Bharath. Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others vs. T. Padmakumari Amma (2007 (1) KHC 376). Referring to the various decisions including the decision in Govind Prakash Verma case (Supra), the Division Bench reiterated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that compassionate appointment was not a matter of absolute right, put it would necessarily depend upon the financial condition of the family on the death of the bread winner of the family. It was held that payment of lump sum and other factors need to be considered in allowing the claim for compassionate appointment. In an unreported judgment in K.K. Sushama υ. The General Manager, Southern Railway, OP(CAT) No. 35 of 2017 the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that compassionate appointment was not actually a right, but only a concession and it cannot be reduced into a method of appointment. It was given to deserving family in destitute owing to the demise of the bread winner of the family to tide over the immediate financial crisis. In State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Shashi Kumar {2019 KHC 6077), the Hon'ble Supreme court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public Digitally MADHU signed by Page 6 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 post in service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Art. 14 and Art.16 of the Constitution. It was asserted that compassionate appointment was 'not a right but only an entitlement to be considered in accordance with the prevailing schemes or the rules framed by the employer, where such as scheme exists.
10. As mentioned earlier, in the DoPT circular on the scheme, which was relied on by the Committee permits taking into consideration the benefits received from the various schemes. The above factor along with multiple factors, which were made available to the Committee were evaluated, analysed and the authority, after balancing it found that the applicant was not eligible for compassionate appointment. This conclusion is based on strong factual premise. Hence, I am not inclined to upset it."
8. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others Special Appeal No.175 of 2016 decided on 19.08.2016 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(2) ADJ 312 (FB) : 2014(1) ESC 547 (All)(FB); Hon'ble High Court in the case of Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. through Secretary Education Department (Basic) and others, 2010(10) ADJ 289 (DB); Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the case of Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, (1998) 5 SCC 192, Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 468, Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar and another, MANU/SC/0996/1996, Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh, MANU/SC/0964/1997 and Md. Zamil Ahmed v. The State of Bihar and others, MANU/SC/0515/2016. On the basis of above, the Hon'ble High Court came to the conclusion that "22. On the basis of objective considerations founded on the disclosures made by the petitioner in this case for compassionate appointment and having considered the reasons for the delay, we are of the opinion that undue hardship within the Digitally MADHU signed by Page 7 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 meaning of the first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules would be caused to the petitioner and his family by the application of the time limit of five years. The expression 'undue hardship' has not been defined in the Rules. Undue hardship would necessarily postulate a consideration of relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the income of the family, its financial condition, the extent of dependency and marital status of its members, its liabilities, the terminal benefits received by the family; the age, together with the nugatory income from any other sources in this case, we are of the view that the family continues to suffer distress and hardship occasioned by death of the bread winner. Considering the penurious condition of the family, it appears to be one of the rarest of rare cases where due to exceptional circumstances the family needs the extraordinary remedy to elate the condition of family. It would be appropriate to deal with the case of the petitioner in a just and equitable manner."
10. The facts of the aforementioned case are not similar to the present case and the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court therein is specific to the circumstances of the case. Thus, it cannot come to the succor of the applicants.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has further referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and others vs. K.R. Vishwanath 2005(4) S.C.T. 186 which is also factually irrelevant to the present case.
12. The impugned order dated 23.06.2022 passed in the matter rejecting the claim of the applicant no.1 for compassionate appointment of applicant no.2 is as under:
"...4. And whereas, the request of Smt. Usha Pandey for compassionate appointment of her daughter, Ms. Vandita Pandey was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) of IB on 23.8.2019. However, Ms. Vandita Pandey could not be recommended for appointment as the family was not found indigent. The CAC dwelt on various aspects of Compassionate Appointment envisaged in DoP&T O.M. dt. 16.1.2013 according to which appointment on compassionate grounds can be given to the dependent family Digitally MADHU signed by Page 8 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 member of a Govt. servant dying in harness, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood to relieve the family from financial destitution. Para 18 (c) of the same O.M. further emphasises that while considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities, including the benefits received under various welfare schemes of the govt., and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family, etc. The above said O.M. is in consonance with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgments dt. 5.4.2011 and 4.5.1994 in the cases of Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006 filed by Local Administration Department Vs. M. Selvanayagam and Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs State of Haryana and others respectively.
5. And whereas, in light of above Scheme and court judgments, the CAC observed that the family had received terminal benefits of Rs. 50,19,600/- & receiving pension of Rs. 42,900/-, pm+DR. They aiso own a house at Lucknow for residential purpose having market value of Rs. 50 lakhs and some agricultural land. Besides, the eldest daughter is married and living separately. CAC observed that the assets and income are not as meagre to declare the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Ms. Vandita Pandey had herself declared that assets possessed by the family (including death benefits) tantamount to more than Rs. 1 Crore. In light of the above, the Committee did not recommend Ms. Vandita Pandey for compassionate appointment.
6. And whereas, Smt. Usha Pandey vide application dt. nil requested to re-consider the case for compassionate appointment of her daughter, Ms. Vandita Pandey. Her request was re-submitted to the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) on 29.1.2020 which, this time too, did not find the family in abject poverty and not recommended the case of Ms. Vandita Pandey for appointment.
7. And whereas, Smt. Usha Pandey vide application submitted in July 2020 requested for compassionate appointment of her youngest daughter, Ms. Shivangi Pandey in place of Ms. Vandita Pandey citing the reason that Ms. Vandita Pandey (employed, living separately in Bangalore) has distanced herself from the family and cannot provide any financial support.
8. And whereas, the above request of Smt. Usha Pandey was examined as per guidelines contained in the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment circulated vide DoP&T O.M. dt.
16.1.2013 as amended from time to time. Examination of the application form for compassionate appointment filled in by Ms. Shivangi Pandey revealed that the earlier applicant namely Ms. Vandita Pandey is now employed. Accordingly, the request of Smt Usha Pandey for compassionate appointment to her youngest daughter could not get favourable outcome. Besides, the case in respect of one family member (viz. Ms. Vandita Pandey) had already been considered and decided. Our office at Lucknow vide letter no. L-3/PFL/EST/2008-1(4)-11-1802 dt.
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 9 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 27.11.2020 intimated the family about the decision in this regard.
9. And whereas, the above decision is also in consonance with the recent Hon'ble Madras High Court, Madurai Bench order dt. 19.6.2019 in the case of Arunkumar Vs the Secretary to Govt holding that 'mere death of a Govt. employee in his harness, does not entitle the family to claim compassionate appointment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family of the deceased employee.'
10. And therefore, after taking into account above facts, objective of the Scheme of compassionate appointment and court rulings, the case of Ms. Vandita Pandey/Ms. Shivangi Pandey was considered but could not be recommended for compassionate appointment."
13. The issue of compassionate appointment has been adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in numerous cases and it has laid down certain laws with respect to the matter which has been summarized in the case of Canara Bank vs Ajithkumar G.K. [2025 INSC 184 1] decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 11.02.2025 and the same is being reproduced hereunder:
"11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order):
a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of India v Anju Jain14].
b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi15].
c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India16].
d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, Digitally MADHU signed by Page 10 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India17].
e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a sidedoor entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi18].
f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das19].
g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar20].
h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India21].
i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India v. Amrita Sinha22].
j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar23].
k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana24].
l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee Digitally MADHU signed by Page 11 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore25].
m)The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi26].
n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari27].
o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar28].
p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara Bank (supra)].
q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh29].
r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered [see Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh30].
s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of "not very well-to-do". [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary31].
t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-inharness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami 32 , Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh33 , National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand34 and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja35].
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 12 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)].
v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL36] w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar37].
x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar38]. y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur39]. z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma40].
It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the decisions referred to above are by coordinate benches of two Judges."
14. From the aforesaid case laws as well as the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties, we can come to the conclusion that compassionate appointment is made on humanitarian grounds which is an exception to the rule of equality meant to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis. It is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the rules must be satisfied by all aspirants. None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance and the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future. It cannot be offered after whatever the lapse of time Digitally MADHU signed by Page 13 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./115/2023 is and after the crisis is over. Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance, however, the retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of "not very well-to-do". The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land are rightly to be taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury.
15. In view of the above discussion and going through the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 in light of the same, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondents which is a very detailed and reasoned order. The Compassionate Appointment Committee has gone through all the details of the case before coming to its conclusion. Needless to say that the elder sister of applicant no.2 was also considered for compassionate appointment before her and the same conclusion was arrived at with regard to the indigent condition of the family of the deceased employee. There is no logic in directing the respondents to again do the same exercise which shall bring the same result repeatedly.
16. Thus, the O.A. lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed as such. Accordingly, the O.A. stands dismissed. All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) Member-A Madhu Digitally MADHU signed by Page 14 of 14 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI