Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Kausalya Bai vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(1)SLJ340(CAT)
ORDER
G. Sivarajan, J. (Vice-Chairman)
1. This is the second round of litigation by one Smt. Kausalya Bai, widow of late Samarth Singh who was employed in a Group-D post in the office of the 3rd respondent. She seeks to quash letter dated 5.04.2005 (Annexure-A 14) and also to set aside the appointment of the 4th respondent. She has also sought for a direction to the official respondents to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Group-D on par with respondent No. 4 and for all consequential benefits.
2. The applicant's husband late Samarth Singh was an ex-serviceman who was reemployed in a Group-D post on 27.03.1987 in the All India Radio, Yadavagiri, Mysore under the 3rd respondent. The applicant's husband died in harness on 22.12.1993. The applicant, it is stated, submitted a standard application form dated 17.03.1994 for compassionate appointment on the ground that she and her four minor children are on indigent circumstances. It is her grievance that respondents 1 to 3 gave appointment to the 4th respondent on compassionate ground ignoring the claim of the applicant. It is further stated that on the other hand, the father of the 4th respondent had entered the service under the 3rd respondent on 17.06.1988, that he died on 23.07.1994, that he was aged 29 years and that the 4th respondent had submitted the application for compassionate appointment on 29.08.1994. It is stated that the applicant's husband, an ex-serviceman entered service under the respondents on 27.03.1987, that he died on 22.02.1993, that he, at the time of his death, was aged 38 years only and that the application for compassionate appointment was made on 17.03.1994. It is the case of the applicant that in view of the aforesaid circumstances she is entitled to get appointment in a Group-D post in the vacancy in which the 4th respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds.
3. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 443 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure-A11). The respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment against any vacancy in existence or which may arise in future as if she was to be considered along with Sri Manjunath Giri. The official respondents, being aggrieved by the said direction, filed Writ Petition No. 5662 of 2005 (S.CAT) before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The said writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 2.03.2005 (Annexure-A12). The respondents then filed miscellaneous application in the disposed of O.A. for extension of time for implementation of the directions issued by the Tribunal in the order dated 9.11.2004. The said application was dismissed by order dated 17.03.2005 (Annexure-A13). The 2nd respondent thereafter passed an order dated 5.04.2005 (Annexure-A14) rejecting the application for compassionate appointment submitted by the applicant. The applicant then filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 17/2005 in O.A. No. 443 of 2004 before this Tribunal. However, the same was dismissed with liberty to the applicant to challenge the order dated 5.04.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, the applicant has challenged the order dated 5.04.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent in this O.A. raising various contentions.
4. The respondents have filed their reply dated 3.03.2006. It is admitted that the applicant had applied for compassionate appointment on 17.03.1994, but, according to them the said application was not in proper format and did not contain the required details about her family background, income and other details, which are required for considering the claim for compassionate appointment. It is stated that in spite of letters and reminder dated 3.06.1995 issued to the applicant no reply was received and the matter was intimated to the 1st respondent by letter dated 6.06.1996 (Annexures-R1 and R2). It is further stated that the 4th respondent, son of late Ganesh Giri Bavaji, Studio Guard, who died due to heart attack while on duty on 23.07.1994, had submitted his application for compassionate appointment in the pro-forma prescribed which contained all the required details and consequently he was appointed to the said post in October 1994. It is also stated that the applicant has not submitted her details even at the time when the 4th respondent's case was processed and recommended to the Directorate for consideration, that the applicant had submitted her application in the prescribed proforma, on 1.08.1995 (Annexure-R3), that all efforts were made to consider her case also after receipt of her application on a later date for compassionate appointment by sending circulars to all AIR and DDK stations in Karnataka which was unsuccessful as there was no vacancy of Group-D available at AIR, Mysore to accommodate her. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent had recommended the case of the 4th respondent for compassionate appointment based on the genuineness of the claim and since only his application has been received in the complete format, that the applicant even though submitted a letter for compassionate appointment in 17.03.1994 (Annexure-R4) she did not furnish any information which is required for consideration and that All India Radio, Mysore was not having the required information for compassionate appointment about the applicant at the time the vacancy arose at Mysore and hence her case could not be recommended. It is also stated that Sri Ganesh Giri Bavaji was not in military service as stated by the applicant and that he was appointed as Peon at All India Radio, Bhadravathi and on his transfer he joined at All India Radio, Mysore from where he got promotion as Studio Guard on 17.06.1988 and after completion of two years his probationary period was terminated vide order dated 26.06.1991. In short, the stand taken by the respondents is that there is no vacancy in the 5% quota for compassionate appointment and therefore, the applicant could not be appointed. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying some of the averments made in the reply and reiterating the averments made in the original application.
5. Heard Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. M. Vasudeva Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the pleadings in the case and the relevant files placed before us by the learned Counsel for the respondents.
6. It is not disputed that the applicant is the widow of late Samarth Singh who was employed as a Group-D employee under the 3rd respondent, that the said Samarth Singh died on 22.12.1993 and that the applicant had filed an application dated 17.3.1994 for compassionate appointment. It is also not in dispute that late Ganesh Giri Bavaji, father of the 4th respondent had died on 23.7.1994 and that the 4th respondent had filed an application for compassionate appointment only on 29.08.1994. It is also admitted position that the incumbent of the 3rd respondent had recommended the 4th respondent's application on 29.08.2004 itself and the 4th respondent was appointed in a Group-D post by an order dated 18.02.1995 with effect from 17.02.1995. The stand taken by the official respondents for non-consideration of the application for compassionate appointment submitted by the applicant is that the application dated 17.03.1994 (Annexure-A1) was not in proper form and that in spite of requests made by the 3rd respondent, the applicant did not furnish the required details before consideration of the application submitted by the 4th respondent. It is the further case of the respondents that there is no vacancy in the 5% quota for giving compassionate appointment to the applicant.
7. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to the order dated 9.11.2004 in O.A. No. 443 of 2004 (Annexure-A11) filed by the applicant earlier. We find that all the contentions taken by the respondents in this O.A. were taken in the said O.A. and it is after due consideration of all the contentions this Tribunal has passed the order as follows:
8. In view of the discussion made hereinbove, the application is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the applicant's case for compassionate appointment against any vacancy in existence or which may arise in future as if she was to be considered along with Manjunath Giri. This direction may be carried out within a period of three months. It is made clear that the present order has been made keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case, particularly when the applicant has been made to suffer because of respondents inaction to consider her case as well as false and misleading statement made by the respondents in their reply. No costs.
It is also relevant to note that the Tribunal had noted the contentions of the respondents that the applicant's case was also considered while considering the case of the 4th respondent and after considering the additional affidavit filed by the respondents on 6.11.2004 it was observed that the affidavit did not clearly spell out as to whether the applicant's case was considered in specific along with the case of the 4th respondent and if it was considered what was the other detail like date of consideration as well as record to support it. It was also observed that no records were produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noted a contention taken in the affidavit that the Competent Authority made efforts to identify the vacancy by issuing circular dated 2.06.1994 and the applicant submitted the relevant documents only on 1st August, 1995. The Tribunal in the context considered the question whether (a) the applicant's case was ever considered for compassionate appointment and (b) whether the respondents' stand as noted was justified and corroborated. It was observed thus:
...As noticed hereinabove, Shri Ganesh Giri Bavaji, Studio Guard died on 23.07.1994 and the said vacancy was filled by promoting Kum. Jayamma on ad hoc basis. She was reverted on her request w.e.f. 21.10.1994 (R-6). Shri Murali, Peon was promoted as Studio Guard w.e.f. 21.10.1994 (R-7) and the resultant vacancy of Peon was filled, by appointing Shri Manjunath Giri, on compassionate basis in February 1995 w.e.f. 21.10.1994. It is not the case of the respondents that at any point of time the applicant was informed about the defects and shortcomings in the application submitted by her on 17.03.1994. No records have been produced to show and support their contention that applicant's case was considered along with Manjunath Giri. These being the facts, it is absolutely clear that when there was vacancy Grade-D the applicant's case for compassionate appointment was not considered at all. Despite the order and directions dated 2.11.2004, the respondents failed to state in clear terms as on what basis the applicant's case for compassionate appointment was considered as noted hereinabove. The respondents, though on the one hand, categorically supported the claim of Shri Manjunath Giri deserved for compassionate appointment following the conditions noted hereinabove including the merger pension, which was in comparison to by Smt. Kaushalya Bai, wife of deceased Samarth Singh, but failed to substantiate their contention. When the applicant was not considered on compassionate ground, I am unable to comprehend on what basis the respondents came to the conclusion that the case of Manjunath Giri deserved compassionate appointment in preference to the applicant's case.
The Tribunal after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Krishnamurthy v. The General Manager, Southern Railway , observed thus:
...If action of the respondents in the present case is tested on the ratio of the aforementioned judgments, which squarely apply to the present case, I am of the considered view that the respondents did not at all consider the applicant in the year 1994 and 1995, while appointing Shri Manjunath Giri, which caused serious injustice to her. Had she been considered at that point of time, when the vacancy was available such injustice could have been avoided.
Regarding the vacancy position pleaded in the case, it was observed thus:
The respondents' contention that there was no vacancy after 1995, in the present circumstances, cannot be accepted as it is their action which caused injustice to her. If the applicant did not submit her proper application before 1.08.1995, as contended, then how her case was taken up with the AIR, Bangalore, as communicated to her vide DG AIR letter dated 23.03.1995 (Annexure-R12) remains unexplained. I may also note that Smt. Ningamma and S.N. Ramegowda had approached the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 35962 of 1998. It is seen from the judgment dated 7.04.2004 passed in the said writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had quashed the impugned order dated 19.06.1995 and 31.07.1995 and directed respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The said judgment also noted that the number of post which fell against 5% vacancy were not disclosed in specific. The respondents' stand that in pursuance of the above said judgment, the respondent had carried out the reconsideration and therefore, there being no vacancy as on date, the applicant could not be appointed to the post in question, my considered view, is misplaced and cannot be accepted particularly in view of the fact that applicant's case was not considered in 1994/1995, when there was vacancy in existence. It is settled law that individual cannot be made to suffer for inaction on the part of Government and its officers.
8. After the aforesaid decision it was for the official respondents to comply with the directions viz., the applicant's case for compassionate appointment against any vacancy in existence or which may arise as if the application was being considered along with the 4th respondent. It is very relevant to note in this context that the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition filed by the official respondents had clearly held that the refusal of the department in not considering the application of the respondent (applicant herein) in the year 1994 on technical grounds is not justified and the direction issued by the Tribunal has to be complied with. However, we find from a perusal of the order dated 5.04.2005 that the application was rejected with the following observation:
...It is seen that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crises due to death of the bread earner leaving the family in penury circumstances. The very fact that Smt. Kausalya Bai has been able to manage all these years is considered to be an adequate ground to conclude that her family had dependable means of subsistence. Besides, there is no vacancy available after appointment of Shri Manjunath Giri under prescribed quota of 5% for compassionate appointment. She is also not eligible for compassionate appointment, because of the fact that Para 8 of DOP&T O.M. No. 14014/1/84-Estt.(D) dated 12.03.1984 prohibits compassionate appointment to the dependants of re-employed pensioners. In addition to this factor, the case of Smt. Kausalya Bai is time barred as in terms of DOP&T instructions vide O.M. No. 14014/90/2002-ESTD(D)dated 5.05.2003, the maximum time a person's case for compassionate appointment can be considered is 3 years and if within three years one cannot be accommodated due to non-availability of vacancy or otherwise the case is to be finally closed.
9. Before considering the validity of this decision, it is necessary to refer to the legal provision in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment to dependents of Government employee dying in harness as it stood at the relevant time. Various Government orders are issued from time to time in regard to compassionate appointments, which have been summarized in Chapter 29 of Swamy's Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration, 5th Edition. As per the instructions it will apply to a widow or son or daughter of a Government servant who dies in harness leaving his family in immediate need of assistance when there is no other earning member in the family. However, it is provided that it will not apply to the widow, son or daughter of a Government servant who dies while in re-employment. The compassionate appointment can be made to Group-C post or Group-D post. The eligibility Clause 4(d) states that where a widow is appointed on compassionate ground to a Group-D post, she will be exempted from the requirements of educational qualifications, provided the duties of the post can be satisfactorily performed without having the educational qualification of Middle standard prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. Clause 5 deals with extent to which compassionate appointments can be made. Clause 9 deals with the selective approach. Clause 11 provides that the proforma as in Annexure may be used by the Ministries/Departments for ascertaining necessary information and processing the case of compassionate appointments. It further provides that balanced and objective assessment on financial condition be stressed. It reads:
Balanced and objective assessment on financial condition stressed. - It is not the intention that application for compassionate appointment should be rejected merely on the ground that the family has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While these benefits should be taken into account, the financial condition of the family has to be assessed taking into account its liabilities and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family, etc., so that a balanced and objective assessment is made on the financial condition of the family while considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground.
[G.I., Dept. of Per. and Trg., O.M. No. 14014/14/91-Estt.(D), dated the 23rd September, 1992.]
10. From a reading of the aforesaid provision in the instructions in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment, it is clear that in the case of widow of a Government servant educational qualifications can be relaxed and it is the duty of the official respondents to issue proforma as in the annexure to the instructions and get it filled by the dependents of the deceased Government employee. The financial condition of the family has to be assessed taking into account the assets including the terminal benefits received by the deceased under various welfare schemes and also taking into account the liabilities and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family etc., so that a balanced and objective assessment is made on the financial condition of the family while considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground.
11. The object for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of a Government employee dying in harness is based on the premise that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. In other words, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India had observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment, that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family and that such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. Again the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Paras Nath , had observed that the purpose of providing employment to the dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service and that to alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are rules providing for such appointments. On the question whether compassionate appointment can be refused on the ground that the dependents of the deceased Government servant had received service benefits, the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. 2005 SCC (L & S) 590, has held that it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. It was observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee and therefore compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. However, we find that the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja 2005(1) SLJ 30 (SC) : 2004 SCC (L & S) 938, took a contrary view. In that case the respondent's father died on 3.12.1999 while working as a Class-IV employee of the appellant Bank leaving behind his mother, widow, two sons and one daughter. Compassionate appointment sought by the respondent shortly thereafter was denied by the Bank on the ground that there was no financial hardship to the family as they had received substantial amounts after the death of the respondent's father. The Rajasthan High Court directed the Bank to consider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment by holding that the retrial benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee would not justify rejection of the application for compassionate appointment. It was held by the Supreme Court that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits and that basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood and that the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. It was further held that the High Court's view that retrial benefits were not to taken into consideration while dealing with the request for compassionate appointment was contrary to the decision in Kunti Tiwari's case (2004) 7 SCC 271. The Supreme Court in General Manager (DPB) and Ors.. v. Kunti Tiwary and Anr. (supra), with reference to an office memorandum circulated to all Banks on 7.08.1996 which provided that in order to determine the financial conditions of the family certain matters have to be considered which includes various service benefits obtained by the deceased Bank employee, took the view that penury or without any means of livelihood has to be decided with reference to those factors. In other words the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that where the scheme/instructions provides for matters to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment it has to be strictly followed.
12. As already noted, the applicant's husband died on 22.12.1993, she made application for compassionate appointment on 17.03.1994, her case was not considered within a reasonable time and the ground taken is that the application was not in the proper form. We find from the communication dated 3.06.1995 (Annexure-R1) issued from the office of the 3rd respondent that the details required was to furnish educational qualification, certificates and other necessary information in connection with the appointment on compassionate grounds. In this context, as already noted, so far as the widow is concerned, educational qualification is not a bar for appointment to Group-D post even assuming that the applicant had not produced any evidence to show that she had studied up to 7th standard. We also find that the 3rd respondent issued circular dated 2.06.1994 (Annexure-A17 produced along with the rejoinder) which states that the applicant had applied for appointment in Group-D cadre on compassionate ground, that at present there is no vacancy in the cadre of Group-D at Mysore and as such all Heads of AIR Stations/DDK are requested to intimate vacancy position in their Stations/Kendras in Group-D cadre against which the applicant could be accommodated to enable the office to take up the matter with the Directorate for approval. It was also stated that any action contemplated for filling up of such vacant post may be deferred to facilitate this appointment on compassionate grounds for a deserving candidate who is having 3 small children. This communication would clearly show that the 3rd respondent, at the relevant time was fully convinced of the genuineness of the claim of the applicant and that it is only on account of the non-availability of vacancy of Group-D posts she could not be appointed. It is rather surprising to note that when a Group-D post became vacant on 21.10.1994 the 3rd respondent blissfully ignored the facts stated above and considered the case of the 4th respondent alone. In the earlier proceedings the 3rd respondent had maintained the stand that the case of the applicant was considered along with the 4th respondent but this was not accepted by the Tribunal. Further, it is seen that it is only when the applicant took up the matter with the Directorate and the Directorate took up the matter seriously as could be seen from the communications dated 23.03.1995 noted as "immediate" (Annexure-A4) and dated 15.04.1995 (Annexure-A5) the office of the 3rd respondent came up with the new case that the applicant did not furnish all the details in the format and that she had submitted proper application only on 1.08.1995. It is also relevant to note that so far as the application submitted by the 4th respondent for compassionate appointment on 29.08.1994 was concerned it was recommended by the incumbent of the 3rd respondent immediately and the 4th respondent was appointed as Peon under the 3rd respondent with effect from 17.02.1995 by order dated 18.02.1995. It is unnecessary for us to deal with all those matters in this O.A., for, according to us all those issues have been considered by this Tribunal in its order dated 9.11.2004 in O.A. No. 443/2004 and the decision taken therein was affirmed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5662 of 2005 filed by the respondents. Thus, it was only a matter for compliance with the directions issued in the said judgment. The direction as already noted was to consider the applicant's case for compassionate appointment in the vacancy in existence or which may arise in future as if she was to be considered along Sri Manjunath Giri, the 4th respondent. It was clearly observed therein that the said order has been made keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case particularly when the applicant has been made to suffer because of respondents' inaction to consider her case as well as false and misleading statement made by the respondents in their reply. This shows that the Tribunal was of the view that the respondents erred in not considering the case of the applicant along with the claim of the 4th respondent and if it is found on a consideration of all relevant matters provided in the instructions, on comparison that the applicant was more in difficult circumstances she should be given appointment in preference to the 4th respondent and since the 4th respondent had been already appointed, at that stage, the only thing that can be done is to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant also in a vacancy existing on the date of the order or arising in future. The High Court in the writ petition also observed that the direction issued by the Tribunal in its discretion cannot be faulted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Now, going by the order dated 5.04.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent, we find that the 2nd respondent had again reiterated the stand taken by the official respondents in the earlier proceedings and had consideration the matter as if it is coming up for the first time before it. On the face of the directions issued by the Tribunal and since the delay in the matter of consideration of the application made by the applicant immediately after the death of her husband it was not open to the respondents, nay, it is against the directions of the Tribunal to extend that the scheme is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis due to the death of the bread-earner leaving the family in penury circumstances and that since the applicant has got over the said situation the applicant cannot be granted the appointment. The Tribunal in the earlier proceedings had dealt the situation and had directed to consider the case of the applicant as if it was being considered along with the application of the 4th respondent. The further ground that there is no vacancy available after the appointment of Sri Manjunath Giri under the prescribed quota of 5% for compassionate appointment is totally against the directions issued by this Tribunal. In the earlier O.A. the Tribunal, taking into account the circumstances, has issued directions to consider the question of appointment of the applicant in an existing vacancy or in a future/arising vacancy. The further reasoning that the applicant is not eligible for compassionate appointment in view of Paragraph 8 of the DOP&T O.M. dated 12.03.1984 also cannot be justified since the said issue has also been considered or deemed to have been considered in the earlier proceedings. Here it must be noted that the applicant's husband at the time of his death was aged only 38 years. Even going by the O.M. (Annexure-R7) relied on by the respondent "the benefit of this scheme is not admissible to those Government servants who pass away during re-employment" according to us would apply only in the case of a Government servant who retires from Government service on superannuation and re-employed thereafter and not in the case of a person who enters Government service at the age of 31 or 32 years, as in the instant case, after military service. The plea of time barred demand in the impugned order is against the direction issued in the earlier O.A. On the whole we find that the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned order totally flouting the directions and findings contained in the order dated 9.11.2004 in O.A. No. 443 of 2004. In the circumstances we quash the order dated 5.04.2005 (Annexure-A14) issued by the 2nd respondent. Consequences of quashing the impugned order in the circumstances discussed hereinabove, in the normal course, is to direct the respondents to pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with the findings and directions of the Tribunal in the order dated 9.11.2004 in O.A. No. 443 of 2004. In view of the inconsistent stand taken by the respondents at different stages and the view already taken by them that there is no vacancy available under the 5% quota for appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Scheme no useful purpose will be served at this long distance of time again to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant.
14. We are aware of the decisions of the Supreme Court which held that Courts and Tribunals cannot issue directions to the administration to appoint anybody within a limit See: Union of India v. Draupadi Behara 2005 SCC (L&S) 267, but can only direct consideration of the claim for appointment. The present case, as we have already noticed, is the case of a Government servant, aged 38 years died while in service, leaving his wife and four children (three of them are minors) without sufficient financial resources in December 1993, the 3rd respondent found that it is a genuine case deserving compassionate appointment but appointment could not be recommended for want of vacancy (see: Annexure-A17 to the Rejoinder), the 4th respondent, whose father died subsequently on 23.07.1994, who made application on 29.08.1994, was given appointment as Group-D in the vacancy which arose on 22.12.1993 ignoring the claim of the applicant, the Tribunal and the High Court in the special circumstances had directed to consider the case for compassionate appointment in any existing or future vacancy but the respondents erroneously justified the stand taken by them. Had the claim of the applicant made immediately after the death of her husband is considered in the vacancy which arose on 22.12.1993 and given to the 4th respondent, this was a fit case for giving appointment to the applicant in preference to the 4th respondent. The respondents are at fault. The injustice caused to the applicant can be redressed only by issuing a direction to the respondents to give appointment to the applicant without raising any technicalities in one of the Group-D posts existing or arising in future as a special case.
15. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to give appointment to the applicant in Group-D posts under them based on her application for compassionate appointment dated 17.03.1994 in any one of the existing or arising vacancies without fail. The respondents will comply with the order and report. The O.A. is allowed as above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.