Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Gulab Chandra vs Central Ordnance Depot on 18 August, 2025
1 (Reserved on 10.07.2025) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the _18th _day of August, 2025 Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J) Original Application No. 265 of 2021 Gulab Chandra, aged about 39 years, S/o Late Manik Chandra Kushwaha, R/o Village Lakhrajpur, Post-Jhunsi, Police Station-Jhunsi, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District-Allahabad- 211019.
........... Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri A.D. Singh.
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary A.H.Q., Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Commandant, Central Ordinance Depot chheoki, Allahabad.
3. Personnel Officer (Civilian), Central Ordinance Depot chheoki, Allahabad.
4. Assistant Personnel Officer (Civilian), Central Ordinance Depot chheoki, Allahabad.
........... Respondents By Advocate: Shri K.K. Ojha.
Order The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to reconsideration of his SHAKUNTALA VERMA 2 compassionate appointment claim through proper assessment, correct marking, and appointment on a suitable post with consequential benefits within a stipulated time. The applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"(i) Quashed the impugned orders dated 19.02.2019 and 20.09.2020 (Annexure A-1) issued by respondent no.3 & 4 in compilation No.I.
(ii) Direct the respondents to reconsider the applicant for compassionate by assessment and awarding the correct marks and to provide the compassionate appointment to the applicant on any post in anywhere with all other consequential benefits within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(iii) To grant such any other relief as the applicant may found entitled to, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the proceeding of the original application in favour of the applicant from the respondents."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the son of a deceased government servant, who was initially appointed on 14.09.1983 and served as a T. Mate under the respondents until his death on 03.05.2015 during the course of service. He is survived by his widow, two sons, and four unmarried daughters, all of whom are unemployed and dependent. Following the demise of the sole breadwinner, the family is facing acute financial distress, residing in a dilapidated house with no source of income other than a minimal family pension. The applicant, having passed High SHAKUNTALA VERMA 3 School in 1996 and belonging to the OBC category, fulfills all eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment, as evidenced by multiple documents including income, property, caste, and residence certificates. A series of representations were submitted by the applicant between July 2018 and April 2019, enclosing requisite documents along with the reports of the Lekhpal and Tehsildar affirming the family's economic vulnerability. The family members have submitted duly sworn no-objection affidavits, supporting the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment. However, the respondents have consistently awarded the applicant 53 or 54 marks in the evaluation, allegedly due to arbitrary and incorrect scoring, whereas proper assessment would have entitled him to 55 marks or above--qualifying him as the highest-ranking candidate eligible for appointment. The applicant made repeated efforts to obtain the details of the marks awarded and Board proceedings held on 12.12.2018 and 26.03.2020 via RTI applications and appeals. These were denied on grounds of confidentiality, despite the applicant being directly affected. The rejection orders dated 19.02.2019 and 15.09.2020 are challenged as being unjust, illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is asserted that the applicant has a prima facie case, supported by documentary SHAKUNTALA VERMA 4 evidence and the dire financial situation of the family, entitling him to relief as prayed. Being aggrieved by the impugned actions of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present Original Application before this Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the counter affidavit filed on 19.01.2022. Per contra, the respondents have contended that the applicant was afforded four distinct opportunities for compassionate appointment consideration, each conducted under the Ministry's 100-point evaluative framework notified via circulars dated 22.01.2010, 14.05.2010, and MoD ID dated 09.01.2018. At no stage did the applicant's merit score of 53 qualify him for recommendation, and family composition norms--excluding married sons--were consistently applied. Respondents averred that terminal benefits and pension of substantial quantum were factored into the point matrix, justifying lower allocation under financial hardship criteria. Each Board's outcome, along with head-wise scoring, was duly communicated, and procedural transparency was maintained throughout, including the offer of Board records and RTI redressal. Allegations of arbitrariness, scoring misallocation, or omission of final consideration (2020) were denied as factually incorrect and legally untenable. Hence, no cause of action arises warranting judicial interference. SHAKUNTALA VERMA 5
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the rejoinder affidavit was duly filed on 26.04.2023, and categorically denies the respondents' assertion that any supplementary rejoinder or additional pleadings were filed thereafter. He further contends that the rejection of the applicant's candidature is premised on erroneous assessment of marks and a flawed interpretation of eligibility norms. It is submitted that despite specific judicial observations, including the settled ratio in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC of India & Ors., the respondents failed to apply the correct criteria while computing marks under "Family Pension," resulting in unwarranted exclusion. Learned counsel asserts that the rejection was mechanical and failed to account for the applicant's financial distress and the constitutional obligation of fair and compassionate consideration. Accordingly, he prays that the Original Application be allowed and the applicant be granted compassionate appointment as per law.
5. Heard Shri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the material available on record.
6. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident that the applicant's case was considered against the SHAKUNTALA VERMA 6 vacancies of 2017, and subsequently against the vacancies of December 2018, on 13.02.2019 and 15.09.2020, respectively. However, as reflected in Annexure A-8, the applicant's case was also considered earlier against the vacancies of 2015 and 2016, wherein he secured 54 points, while the last selected candidate had obtained 58 points. Against the vacancies of 2016-17, the applicant secured 53 points, whereas the last selected candidate had obtained 58 points, as per the departmental communication dated 27.06.2018. Finally, in the year 2020, when his case was considered against the 2018 vacancies, he again secured 53 points, while the last selected candidate had obtained 57 points. Thus, the applicant's case has been duly considered on five separate occasions. From the record and the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the position of the applicant vis-à-vis the last selected candidate, Gulab Chandra, has been clearly tabulated and disclosed. The same is quoted hereinbelow: -
No. of Board No. of No. of Points of lastPoints of Position of chance held on Vacancies Candidates selected applicant the candidates applicant in each Board I 03.04.2018 41 (2015- 146 58 (Last 54 60
16) recommended amongst candidate) 146 eligible candidates II 12.12.2018 73 (2016- 198 55 (Last 53 94
17) recommended amongst candidate) 198 eligible candidates SHAKUNTALA VERMA 7 III 30.08.2019 43 (2017- 221 60 (Last 53 90
18) recommended amongst candidate) 221 eligible candidates IV 26.03.2020 43 (2018) 187 57 (Last 53 75 recommended amongst candidate) 187 eligible candidates V 15.04.2021 22 (2019) 279 61 (Last 53 95 recommended amongst candidate) 279 eligible candidates
7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that had 55 marks been awarded, the applicant might have been selected on the second occasion. It is further alleged that the marks awarded by the respondents are erroneous, and accordingly, the applicant sought information under the RTI Act regarding the marks awarded to each candidate. However, the same was denied by the appellate authorities under the RTI framework. This contention cannot be sustained, as the counter affidavit clearly reflects that the assessment of the applicant's case was undertaken on the basis of documents submitted by him and a thorough perusal of the official record. Marks were awarded under different attributes as per the norms laid down in the Ministry of Defence Office Memorandum F. No. 19(3)/2009-D(Lab) dated 22.01.2010, and further clarified by MOD ID No. 19(2)/2017-D(Lab) dated 09.01.2018. The respondents have described each and every point awarded SHAKUNTALA VERMA 8 to the applicant under the relevant heads, which is quoted hereinbelow: -
No. Particulars Assets Liabiliti Max Points es Points to be allotted Amount Total (Rs) Amount (Rs) a Family Pension 17,150/- 17,150/- - 20* 12* (Excluding DA &Allces) b Terminal Benefits 870,881/- 14,69,820/ - 10* 01** Gratuity 2,69,690/- -
GP Fund 52,779/-
CGEGIS Leave 2,76,270/-
Encashment
c Monthly Income of NIL NIL - 05* 05*
earning members
and income from
property
d Moveable/Immovab 37,000/- 37,000/- - 10* 08*
le property (Lastest
Market Value in Rs)
e No. of Dependents - - 05 *3/15 15*
f No. of Unmarried - - 02 *3/15 10*
daughter
g No. of Minor - - 00 *3/15 00*
children
h Left Over Service 03(Y)06( - - 10* 02*
by the M)28(D)
deceased/MBO/Mis
sing Govt.
employees
Total 100* 53**
Marks
** Marks have been assessed as per MOD ID No 19(2)/2017-D(Lab) dated 09.01.2018 ** Marks on terminal benefit has been assessed in terms of F. No.19(3)/2009 D(Lab) dated 22.01.2010 as notified at para 6(c) to MOD ID No 19(2)/2017 D(Lab) dated 09.01.2018
8. While considering the applicant's case in 2010, and identically thereafter, the respondents have consistently stated that there is no specific pleading or denial regarding the marks awarded under any particular head. The only contention raised is that had 10 marks been awarded under SHAKUNTALA VERMA 9 the head of terminal benefits instead of 01, the applicant would have been selected. However, this assertion is speculative and not supported by any procedural irregularity or violation of guidelines.
9. In my considered opinion, the total amount of terminal benefits, excluding family pension, was Rs. 14,69,820/-, and the respondents have assessed the marks allotted to the applicant strictly in accordance with the prevailing guidelines, including the revised family pension norms. Therefore, no illegality or arbitrariness is found in the awarding of marks under the different attributes.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Vivek Singh v. Union of India, wherein the Tribunal found that the deduction of marks under the "family pension" head was contrary to the applicable norms, and the applicant therein was wrongly awarded 1 mark instead of 10. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. In Gulab Chandra's case, the scoring was done in accordance with the adopted matrix under the 2010 Circular, and the applicant was considered on multiple occasions, securing fewer marks than the last selected candidate. No deviation from the prescribed norms or arbitrary deduction has been shown.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 10
11. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception carved out to provide immediate relief to families in financial distress. It is governed by specific guidelines and subject to comparative merit and availability of vacancies. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Committee unless there is manifest injustice or mala fide, which is not evident in the present case.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 8842-8855 of 2022, has reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but a concession extended to mitigate sudden financial crisis arising from the death of a government servant. The Court held that such appointment must be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress, and cannot be claimed after lapse of time or once the crisis is overcome. It was further emphasized that all relevant factors--including family income, terminal benefits, and dependency--must be considered in the evaluative process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made similar pronouncements in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, observing that delayed claims defeat the very object of the compassionate appointment scheme, which is intended to provide urgent relief. In Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., the Court reiterated that unless SHAKUNTALA VERMA 11 appointment is made soon after the need to mitigate hardship arises, the very objective of such appointments may be frustrated. In the present case, the applicant was considered on multiple occasions and awarded marks in accordance with the notified 100-point matrix. The family has been receiving pension and other terminal benefits, and no exceptional hardship has been demonstrated warranting deviation from the prescribed norms. In view of the settled law, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the applicant's claim does not call for any interference.
13. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
14. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (J) /Shakuntala/ SHAKUNTALA VERMA