Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Jyoti Malik vs Cgda on 9 April, 2026
1
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No. 1361 of 2024
This the 09th Day of April, 2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Jyoti Malik aged about 41 years W/o Late Rahul Chaudhary
daughter-in-law of Late Ishwar Singh, resident of
Arjunpuram, Chamrawal Raod, District Baghpat, U.P.
....Applicant.
By Advocate: Mr. Harsh Kumar Mishra.
Versus
1. Union of India through Controller General of Defence
Accounts, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt.
2. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Western
Command), Chandigarh.
3. Assistant Controller (AN) Office of Defence Accounts
Principal Controller, Chandigarh.
4. Senior Account Officer, Office of Principal Controller of
Defence Accounts (ARMY), Sector-9, Chandigarh.
...Respondents.
By Advocate: Mr. Vidyapati Tripathi.
ORDER
Mr. Harsh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking redressal of her grievance with regard to compassionate Shakuntala Singh 2 appointment. The present Original Application has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.08.2024, whereby the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that being a daughter-in-law, she cannot be considered as a dependent member of the family. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-
"a) To quash/set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the respondent no. 4.
b) To issue, an order or direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant on the compassionate grounds as per her qualifications.
c) To issue such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The brief facts of the case are that Late Shri Ishwar Singh was posted as Senior Accounts Auditor in the office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Chandigarh. He died in harness on 23.01.2014. Thereafter, an application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the wife of the deceased on 23.04.2014 seeking appointment of her son, namely Rahul Chaudhary. The case of Shri Rahul Chaudhary, who is the husband of the present applicant, was considered by the respondents; however, the same was rejected on the ground that, being a married son, he was not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, pursuant to subsequent instructions regarding consideration of cases of married sons, the case was again considered by the respondents, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 23.08.2017 on the ground that the case did not fulfil the prescribed indigency criteria. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1530/2017. During the pendency of the said Original Application, the Shakuntala Singh 3 husband of the applicant, namely Rahul Chaudhary, died and, consequently, this Tribunal vide order dated 16.04.2024 dismissed the said Original Application on the ground that no cause of action survived after his death. Thereafter, the present applicant, being the widow of Late Rahul Chaudhary, submitted representations seeking compassionate appointment for herself. The respondents, after considering her representation dated 27.04.2024, passed the impugned speaking order dated 28.08.2024 rejecting her claim on the ground that a daughter-in-law is not covered within the definition of dependent family member under the extant DoP&T instructions. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal position. It is submitted that the applicant is a widowed daughter-in-law and is facing financial hardship and, therefore, her case ought to have been considered on compassionate grounds.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the applicant has been considered strictly in accordance with the extant DoP&T instructions and the Master Circular dated 02.08.2022 (Annexure CA-3), wherein the dependent family members are defined as follows:-
"Note I "Dependent Family Member" means:
(a) spouse; or
(b) son (including adopted son); or
Shakuntala Singh
4
(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or
(d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried
Government servant or
(e) member of the Armed Forces referred to in
(A) or (B) of this para,
--who was wholly dependent on the Government servant/ member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be."
6. In counter, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the applicant has been considered at various stages in accordance with the extant DoP&T instructions and has been rejected on merits. It is contended that the claim for compassionate appointment was initially made by the son of the deceased employee, which was duly considered and rejected, and thereafter also the case was reconsidered but found not fulfilling the indigency criteria. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is intended only to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee. The applicant, being a daughter-in-law, does not fall within the definition of "dependent family member" under the prevailing instructions dated 02.08.2022, and therefore, her claim has rightly been rejected by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant, in rejoinder, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Sushila Devi, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 383/2023, and drew attention to paragraphs 7, 11 and 12, which are quoted hereinbelow:-
"7. In the present case, it is contended that initially when the government servant died, she was survived by many Shakuntala Singh 5 dependents which included son, daughter-in-law and three minor children. The son made an application for grant of compassionate appointment which was processed. There is nothing on record to show that the application of the son was rejected on the ground that he was not dependent on his mother (government employee). However, when the son died before grant of any compassionate appointment to him, the widowed daughter-in-law was entitled to be considered and for that purpose the relevant Rule is required to be purposively construed and interpreted to advance the object of benificient legislation. He would further submit that the order passed by learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Pinky Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra) was challenged by filing an appeal by the State and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2012 in D.B. SAW No.1915/2011 State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Pinky.
..................
11. It is not a case where during the lifetime of son of the deceased employee, an application for grant of compassionate appointment was made by the writ petitioner. In unfortunate event the husband of the writ petitioner also died before he could be granted compassionate appointment, therefore, in these circumstances, the writ petitioner, who is the widowed daughter- in-law, applied for grant of compassionate appointment. She was definitely dependent on her mother-in-law because there is no material on record to show that her husband Sawar Lal was earning independently and, therefore, otherwise not entitled to compassionate appointment. There is absolutely no doubt that she was dependent on the earning of her mother-in-law, who died in harness."
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Vibha Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that a widowed daughter-in-law is also entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment by adopting a liberal interpretation of the term "family".
9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
10. It is not in dispute that initially the claim for compassionate appointment was made by the son of the deceased employee, which was rejected, and subsequently, the Original Application filed by him also stood dismissed due to his death. Thereafter, the present applicant, being the Shakuntala Singh 6 widow of the said son, has sought compassionate appointment for herself. The rejection of the claim of the applicant is primarily based on the ground that a daughter- in-law is not included within the definition of "dependent family member" under the DoP&T instructions dated 02.08.2022. However, various judicial pronouncements have consistently held that in appropriate cases, a widowed daughter-in-law, being dependent upon the deceased employee, can be considered for compassionate appointment by adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation of the scheme. In Vibha Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2024 (0) Supreme (All) 1232 : 2024 (5) ADJ 798, paragraph 7 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"7. Learned counsel has submitted that the definition of family under Rule 2 (c) includes wife or husband, sons and adopted sons, daughters (including adopted daughters) and widowed daughters-in-law, unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried and Rule 5 deals with recruitment of members of the family of the deceased. From the above said Rule, one member of the family who is not already employed under the Central Government or State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or State Government, on making an application in suitable manner in the Government Service in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person fulfills the educational qualification."
11. Further, in Vibha Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), the Hon'ble High Court observed in paragraph 13 as under:-
"13. As per the custom of Indian Society, daughter-in-law is also supposed to be treated as a daughter as she is also an integral part of the family. The main purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of a deceased Government servant is to relieve the family from distress and destitution on account of death of sole bread earner of the family. Even in the instant case, an exceptional situation has been created as though the husband of the petitioner is alive but he is having more than 75% disability and he is unable to Shakuntala Singh 7 earn/work, which requires a liberal construction of the meaning under Section 2(c) of the Rules, 1974."
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and legal position, I am of the considered opinion that once the claim of the husband of the applicant, namely Rahul Chaudhary, stood abated on account of his death, the applicant, being his widow, has the right to move a fresh application for compassionate appointment as a dependent. As such, the rejection of the claim of the applicant solely on the ground that she is a daughter-in-law is not justified, therefore, her case deserves to be reconsidered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 is set aside and the Original Application is disposed of to the extent indicated hereinabove. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment, treating her as a dependent family member, in accordance with the applicable rules/instructions and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order or in the next meeting of the Compassionate Review Committee (CRC), whichever is earlier.
13. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (J) /Shakuntala/ Shakuntala Singh