Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
S Laxmi vs Employees Providend Fund Organisation ... on 13 March, 2026
1
OA.No.519/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00519/2022
ORDER RESERVED ON 23.02.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 13.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. S.Laxmi, W/o. Late S.Narasimha, Aged 61 years, Gr. 'C'
R/o H.No.2-2-1167/3/68/1
Tilaknagar, Nallakunta
Hyderabad-500 044.
2. S.Anil Kumar, S/o Late S.Narasimha
Aged 41 years, Occ: Un-employee
R/o H.No.2-2-1167/3/68/1
Tilaknagar, Nallakunta
Hyderabad-500 044. .....Applicants
(By Advocate Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India, Rep. by
The Secretary, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Shram Shakti Bhavan
New Delhi.
2. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Rep. by
The Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14-Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi - 110 066.
3. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Zonal Office, Telangana, NAC Campus, Cyberabad
Kothaguda (Post), Hyderabad.
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Prashanti Nagar, TSRTC Bus Complex, 2nd Floor
Near 'Y' Junction, Kukatpally
Hyderabad - 500 018. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, SC for EPFO)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST=
Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004,
serialNumber=
PALLI
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41
813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA
BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
SANDHYA
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
2
OA.No.519/2022
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records pertaining to 2nd respondent's office letter dated 30.11.2021; letter of 3rd respondent office dated 03.12.2021 and the 4th respondent letter dated 20.12.2021 addressed to the 2 nd Applicant in the matter of compassionate appointment; set aside and quash the same to the extent of the case of the Applicant, duly declaring the mention in para 3 of the letter dated 30.11.2021 that the guidelines in circular dated 25.10.2021 that it is prospective in nature and applicable only to the cases subsequent to 25.10.2021 is unconstitutional; and direct the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd Applicant for appointment under compassionate quota in MTS Cadre and provide the same forthwith and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice."
2. The case, as submitted by the Applicant, is as follows, in a nutshell:
i. The 1st Applicant's husband, viz., S.Narasimha, while working as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), in the office of the 4th Respondent, went missing in 2004. The 1st Applicant filed O.A.No.323 of 2015 in this Tribunal, as her representations, addressed to the authorities, were not being responded to in the matter of settling the pensionary benefits. This Tribunal, vide order, dt.10.03.2015, disposed of the OA, at the admission stage, with a direction to the Respondents to consider the representation of the 1st Applicant and to release the pensionary benefits due to her, if she is eligible for the same, within a period of 4 weeks. Thereafter, the 1st Applicant submitted a letter, dt.25.03.2015, requesting to settle the pensionary benefits and also to consider her Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 3 OA.No.519/2022 son's case for compassionate appointment. Pensionary benefits of the said S.Narasimha were settled in the year 2016. ii. The 1st Applicant pursued her request for compassionate appointment in favour of her 2nd son, with the consent of her elder son and daughter. The 2nd Applicant, who is the 2nd son of the 1st Applicant, applied for compassionate appointment, on 01.05.2017, referring to the 'No Objection Certificate' of other family members, pleading his indigent condition. The 1st and the 2nd Applicants sent reminders, separately, on 22.05.2017, addressed to the CPF Commissioner, New Delhi/R-2 marking copies to the concerned authorities. The then Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Hyderabad, sought details of the family members along with dependency status from the 1 st Applicant, vide letter, dt.23.04.2018. The 1st Applicant submitted a letter on 02.05.2018, explaining the financial difficulties being faced by the family of the deceased employee, seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her 2nd son. A query was raised by the 4th Respondent office, vide letter, dt.25.07.2018, regarding the narrow age gap of 9 years, 1 month & 7 days, between the deceased father and the eldest daughter, to which the 1st Applicant provided a reply in August, 2018.
iii. The office of the 2nd Respondent issued a clarification on 25.10.2021, referring to the revised guidelines on compassionate appointments. The said clarification, inter alia, refers to Para 3 of the Circular, dt.25.10.2021, which states that in cases where an applicant is eligible for the MTS cadre and penury is established, the Additional Chief Commissioner of the Zone may consider the application for the post of Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 4 OA.No.519/2022 MTS, subject to the availability of vacancies under the compassionate quota, in the MTS cadre in the concerned State / Zone, by applying the said guidelines, prospectively. By referring to the said clarification, the 3rd Respondent office conveyed, vide letter, dt.03.12.2021, that the compassionate appointment proposal of the 2nd Applicant to the post of MTS is not considered as per Para 7(a) of the Head Office Circular, dt.23.07.2020, r/w Para 3 of the Head Office Circular, dt.25.10.2021. The 4th Respondent conveyed the said communication, vide letter, dt.20.12.2021, (Ann-A-1), to the 2nd Applicant. iv. Applicants have argued that the policy of compassionate appointment has evolved as a social security measure, to provide succour to the family of the deceased or deemed to be deceased employee, who died in harness. Facts of indigent condition and penury are required to be examined to extend the benefit of the said welfare legislation to the dependent family member, eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds. As per the impugned H.O. letter, dt.30.11.2021, the 2nd Respondent office, on 23.07.2020, directed the authorities at the lower rungs to keep the proposals for compassionate appointments pending, and, later on, issued directions, on 25.10.2021, to provide compassionate appointment on the ground of penury. A rider was added further that such guidelines shall be applied prospectively to the cases of the employees, who died or went missing, after 25.10.2021. The Applicant was not supplied a copy of the circulars, dt.23.07.2020 & 25.10.2021, referred to in the impugned letter, dt.30.11.2021. The impugned direction, as above, for prospective application, is illegal and Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 5 OA.No.519/2022 arbitrary, as, by keeping the Applicants' case pending, compassionate appointment was rejected by stating that the clarification issued, subsequently, was to be applied, prospectively. The respondents reiterated that the case of compassionate appointment had to be examined by following the cardinal principle of penury, but they ought to have seen that prospective application of the same is irrational and illogical. The authorities are duty-bound to examine the indigent condition of the family, irrespective of date of death or date from which missing, so as to give meaningful application to a welfare legislation without any dichotomy.
v. According to the Applicants, the action of the respondents, in denying compassionate appointment to the Applicants, resulted in blatant discrimination. There is no time limit for compassionate appointment and a request for compassionate appointment can be carried forward and even closed cases can be reopened, subject to fulfilment of the criteria. The impugned communication runs contrary to the policy of compassionate appointment. The rejection of the case of the 2nd Applicant after keeping it pending, by fixing a cut-off date for consideration of the application, in an arbitrary manner, is illegal and has resulted in gross injustice.
3. The grounds further advanced for relief are as follows -
i. The Applicants had submitted application in the year 2015, which was kept under consideration, seeking various documents, as is evident from the correspondence with the Applicants. The Head Office, vide letter, dt.23.07.2020, imposed a temporary ban on compassionate Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 6 OA.No.519/2022 appointment to the post of MTS, citing the reason of excess operation of posts than the sanctioned strength, which is, in principle, a violation of the DoPT guidelines for providing exemption to compassionate appointments. The direction to keep the applications pending, then giving clearance to provide appointment on compassionate ground only in the cases registered after the date of clearance shows arbitrary exercise of power.
ii. The ban orders communicated vide the 1st Respondent's letter, dt.23.07.2020, cannot be applied, retrospectively, to the case of the Applicants, as their application for compassionate appointment was pending since 2015. Hence, the impugned circular, dt.25.10.2021, wherein prospective application is prescribed, is not applicable to the case of the Applicants. The circular, dt.25.10.2021, which is referred to on 30.11.2021, created an ambiguous situation of creating a dichotomy between the family of persons who died prior to 24.10.2021 being ineligible for compassionate appointment, whereas the family of a person who died on/after 25.10.2021 is eligible for compassionate appointment. This is in violation of the preamble / objective of the DoPT policy, vide OM No.14014/02/2012-Estt. (D), dt.16.01.2013, to bring uniformity and transparency in the procedure of granting approval for appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of an employee who died/went missing, leaving his family in penury. The action of rejecting the case of the applicants is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and runs contrary to the policy, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 7 OA.No.519/2022 and is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the OA.
4. On issue of notice, Respondents have filed their detailed reply stating that -
i. The 1st Applicant's husband went missing while working as MTS. She filed OA No.323 of 2015, stating that she was entitled only to pensionary benefits and never claimed compassionate appointment for her son. She got all benefits in the year 2016. The present OA seeking compassionate appointment for her son, was filed 6 years after the settlement of pensionary benefits.
ii. It is submitted that the 2nd Respondent issued Guidelines for appointment on compassionate grounds to ensure uniformity and transparency of Procedure across the Country, vide Circular, dt.23.07.2020. At Para 7(a) of the Circular, it was clearly mentioned that in-position strength in the cadre of MTS is over-saturated and, hence, no appointment of MTS could be made under compassionate appointment. Further, the 2nd Respondent issued Revised Guidelines for Compassionate Appointments in EPFO, vide circular, dt.25.10.2021. As per para (3) of Circular, dt.25.10.2021, a decision was taken that cases where the Applicant is eligible for MTS cadre and it has been established that there is more penury in the family, the ACC (Zone) may consider the compassionate applications for the post of MTS, subject to availability of vacancies under the compassionate quota in the MTS Cadre, in the concerned State/Zone. In para (5) of the Circular, dt.25.10.2021, it was clearly mentioned that the above Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 8 OA.No.519/2022 guidelines will come into force with immediate effect and will be applicable only to the prospective cases. Copies of the Circulars, dt.23.07.2020, and, 25.10.2021, are public domain documents and the same are available in the Circulars section of the EPFO website and are accessible to the public.
iii. According to the Respondents, the OA is not maintainable, as the relief sought by the Applicant is against the orders for compassionate appointments and, as such, it is liable to be dismissed. iv. It is further submitted that the terminal benefits in respect of late S.Narasimha, MTS, were sanctioned in favour of the 1st Applicant, vide order, dt.07.10.2015. Application for compassionate appointment to the post of MTS was submitted by the 2nd Applicant, on 21.12.2015. The same was verified and forwarded on 20.05.2016 to the 2nd Respondent who, vide letter, dt.15.02.2018, intimated the shortcomings in the application of Sri S.Anil Kumar, S/o Sri S.Narasimha, MTS (missing), and also advised to send the same with supporting documents. In this connection, the Enforcement Officer (E.O.) was deputed, on 23.04.2018, to obtain the required documents as per the instructions contained in the letter, dt.15.02.2018, issued by the 2nd Respondent. After receipt of the EO's Report, dt.07.05.2018, the shortcomings were incorporated along with the relevant documents. Certain discrepancies were further identified, while going through the pension file, and the compassionate appointment file. Hence, again the Area EO was deputed for verification and the area EO Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 9 OA.No.519/2022 submitted report, dt.07.06.2018, duly clarifying the discrepancies, forwarded to the 3rd Respondent, vide letter, dt.19.06.2018. v. The 4th Respondent, vide letter, dt.24.07.2018, to the 2nd Respondent, forwarded the proformas, PART-B, PART-C and also intimated the discrepancy of age gap between the father, viz. Sri S.Narasimha (DOB- 24.02.1967) and his eldest daughter (DOB - 01.04.1976) being only 09 years 01 month 07 days. A letter, dt.25.07.2018, was issued to the 1 st Applicant advising her to clarify the discrepancy with documentary evidence. No reply is received till date.
vi. In pursuance of the above guidelines, the 3rd Respondent informed the 4th Respondent, vide letter, dt.03.12.2021, regarding the non-
consideration of the Compassionate Appointment proposal in respect of Shri S.Anil Kumar, S/o Late S.Narasimha, MTS, RO Kukatpally, to the post of MTS. The 4th Respondent informed the same to the Applicants, vide letter, dt.20.12.2021.
vii. It is submitted that the case of appointment under compassionate rules was not rejected by keeping it pending. In view of the in-position strength in the cadre of MTS, since it is over-saturated at the organisation level, all such applications were not considered.
viii. According to the Respondents, the guidelines of the Head Office issued, vide letter, dt.23.07.2020, are perfectly in order. With a good intent of deciding such appointments at the Zonal level for both speedy appointments and vacancy decision as per the position at the Zonal level, revised letter, dt.25.10.2021, was issued, with the direction that the order was effective from the date of issue of the order. Accordingly, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 10 OA.No.519/2022 the decision of rejection of the application for appointment was conveyed to the Applicant.
ix. Respondents have sought dismissal of the OA, contending that there is no merit in it.
5. The Applicants have filed a rejoinder, reiterating the submissions already made in the OA. They further submit that -
i. Applicant No.2 has contended that the averment that his mother never claimed compassionate appointment for him is false. Application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 21.12.2015.
Representation, dt.25.03.2015, submitted by his mother, in this regard, was acknowledged by the authority. In response to his further representations, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Hyderabad, sought details, vide letter, dt.23.04.2018. Thus, the Circular, dt.23.07.2020, has no application to this case, as his case pertains to the period prior to issuance of the above circular. Hence, the restriction on appointment of MTS is not applicable in his case. Even otherwise, since a decision was taken, vide Circular, dt.25.10.2021, to process the cases on the basis of penury, the Applicants' case of 2016 ought to have been reviewed.
ii. He has also denied the averment by the Respondents that, in response to the letter, dt.25.05.2018, no reply was received by them. His mother had submitted a reply in August, 2018, enclosing the Birth Certificate of his sister, Sandiri Saritha.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 11 OA.No.519/2022 iii. As seen from the various steps taken by the Respondents during 2018, there was no restriction at that point of time. The Circular, dt.23.07.2020, is applicable to the subsequent period but not to the period prior to 23.07.2020. It could not be said that at the time of processing of his case, during 2015 to 2018, there was over-saturation in the MTS cadre.
iv. In his case, empathetic view was taken, as process for compassionate appointment had begun much earlier, but it was not taken to its logical conclusion by raising unnecessary objections and by the reason of a technical stand that letter, dt.25.10.2021, has prospective application. The rejection of his application, thus, is bad in law as the subject matter relates to a beneficial legislation which was intended to tide over the indigent situation of the family in view of the bread winner's disappearance.
6. In reply to the rejoinder, Respondents have filed a copy of the Minutes of the MEETING OF CENTRAL SCREENING COMMITTEE held on 15.07.2025 along with the Current Financial Status of the family, dt.29.08.2025. Relevant portions of the CRC Meeting on 15.07.2025, in which the case of Sri S.Anil Kumar was also considered, are extracted below -
"2. It is informed that the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2024 has been notified on 23.01.2025 (Annexure 'A') wherein it is mandated that henceforth all compassionate appointments in EPFO will be made with the approval of Central P.F.Commissioner.
3. The object of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government Servant who dies in harness or who is retired on medical grounds thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government Servant concerned from financial destitution.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 12 OA.No.519/2022
4. In respect of belated requests Para 10 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2024 stipulates the following -
(i) The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, in respect of belated requests a great deal of circumspection is required during examination. (Para 10.1 of Annexure 'A')
(ii) Accordingly, in all such cases the Central Recommendation Committee (CRC) shall examine the reason for delay, the present circumstances of the family and how the family could survive in the interregnum. (Para 10.2 of Annexure ' A') x x x
6. The committee was informed that there are certain cases in which the Central Administrative Tribunals have issued directions for disposing of the representations and/or filing the response of the Organisation regarding compassionate appointment.
In order to ensure the compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, the Committee decided to take up the case of Sh.S.Anil Kumar, S/o. Sh.S.Narsimha, MTS.
The brief facts of the case are as under -
a) Shri S.Narasimha was working on the post of MTS at Regional Office, Kukatpally on permanent basis and went missing in 2004.
b) The spouse of the government official submitted a letter dated 25.03.2015 for appointment on compassionate grounds in respect of his son Sh.S.Anil Kumar. Later the Applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 21.12.2015.
c) The application for compassionate appointment was processed at Regional Office and was forwarded to Head office vide letter dated 20.05.2016.
x x x
10. The committee observed that, in the instant case, the government official went missing on 18.05.2004 i.e. before 01.01.2020, therefore the above case falls under a different category wherein a great deal of circumspection is required considering the fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years and should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family has some dependable means of subsistence. (Para 10 of Annexure 'A')
11. Accordingly, the committee took note of the current financial condition of the family of Sh.S.Narasimha and took special note of the fact that, at present, there is no minor son or unmarried daughter in the family. The Applicant is currently employed in a private firm. The family has a total monthly income of Rs.53,770/-, derived from the family pension received by Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 13 OA.No.519/2022 the widow and the earnings of the two sons, namely Shri Parsuram and Shri S.Anil Kumar (Applicant). (Annexure 'D')
12. The committee observed that the Applicant had the qualification of 12th and is eligible for MTS post only.
13. Para 8.4 of the Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2024 stipulates that out of the total vacancies finalised for MTS, five vacancies are to be filled every year through Compassionate Appointment on the basis of higher degree of "penury".
14. The committee observed that, out of the total 61 no. of applications received so far for compassionate appointment for the post of MTS, the Applicant Sh.S.Anil Kumar does not fall within the top five applications. (List attached as Annexure 'E')
15. The Committee emphasized that the overall intent of the Compassionate Appointment Policy is to grant immediate relief to the family of the deceased government employee and to help the family get over the financial distress. The Committee was of the opinion that the true object of the policy can be served only when the compassionate appointments are granted to the most deserving cases and the scheme of compassionate appointments is not reduced to a substitute of regular appointments.
x x x In the fitness of things and having tested the facts of the case on the touchstone of the above said parameters and also the fact that the Applicant does not fall within the top five application for compassionate appointment for the post of MTS as elaborated in PARA 14 above, the committee is of the considered opinion that the representation for compassionate appointment does not merit consideration."
The Committee has referred to the order, dt.11.02.2025, in the case of Canara Bank vs. Ajith Kumar GK.
7. On the other hand, the Applicants have filed another affidavit arguing that by projecting a wrong monthly income figure of Rs.53,770/- and by applying the Policy of 2024, though the family was suffering from higher degree of "penury", Applicant No.2's name was not considered for Compassionate Appointment.
Their case warrants immediate relief to the family, since 2004. Hence, ignoring the facts which encompassed several years, by belatedly assessing the facts, presuming more income, the financial distress from which they have been suffering, his case is wrongly rejected. According to them, the Hon'ble Supreme Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 14 OA.No.519/2022 Court judgment is not applicable as the respondents have a policy of their own. Keeping a policy of Compassionate Appointment and referring to a judgment is not correct, as his case falls in the exceptional category.
8. In response to the Additional Affidavit, respondents have submitted that -
i. The assessment of the case was carried out by applying the benchmark of 35 marks as prescribed under the applicable Policy. The relative merit points were calculated strictly in accordance with the approved parameters and methodology. It is submitted that securing higher marks at an earlier stage does not automatically entitle an Applicant to compassionate appointment, as each assessment is required to be made afresh under the prevailing policy.
ii. It is further submitted that the objective of the compassionate appointment scheme is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased/missing employee in cases of sudden financial crisis. In this context, the fact that the family has been able to manage its affairs for several years after the missing of the employee was taken into consideration, as per the policy. Based on the overall assessment, it has been concluded that the family was not in penurious circumstances warranting compassionate appointment.
iii. The financial assessment was carried out by the Departmental Representative in accordance with the prescribed guidelines. The total monthly income of the family was computed based on the details furnished by the Applicant, departmental records and field verification.
All known sources of income of the family members were duly taken into Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 15 OA.No.519/2022 account. No documentary evidence was produced by the applicants to substantiate the claim that the income assessment was incorrect. iv. The Authority concerned has observed that, out of the total 61 no. of applications received, so far, for compassionate appointment for the post of MTS, the Applicant, Sh.S.Anil Kumar, does not fall under the category of "higher degree of penury", within the top five applications, where appointments under Compassionate Grounds were allowed. v. Respondents have prayed to dismiss the OA, arguing that it is devoid of merits.
9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
10.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the Respondents have issued updated policy for compassionate appointment- 2024-25. He has drawn attention to page-78 of the additional reply which speaks of fresh report on the financial status of the applicant in the light of the recent policy, vide circular, dt.23.01.2025. It is submitted that the Central Recommendation Committee (CRC) of Respondent No.2 has reviewed the case of Sri S.Anil Kumar (Applicant No.2) and not considered his case for compassionate appointment.
11.Learned counsel for the respondents has cited Para-3 of the additional reply stating that the present OA has been filed after 6 years of settlement of pensionary benefits, which was sought earlier in OA.No.323/2015. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 16 OA.No.519/2022
12.Learned counsel for the respondents has laid emphasis on the concluding paragraph in the minutes of the meeting of the Central Screening Committee (CSC) held on 15.07.2025. He has also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. A.Radhika Thirumalai.
13.The main contention of the Applicants is that even though application was made for CGA in favour of S.Anil Kumar/Applicant No.2, in the present OA, his case was kept pending since 2015, by raising frivolous objections and, finally, it was disposed of in the year 2021 about which intimation was received by him, vide the impugned order, dt.20.12.2021 (Ann.A-1). On the other hand, Respondents have submitted that the request for CGA itself had been made several years after the disappearance of the employee, Sri S.Narasimha, MTS. In fact, Applicant No.1, Smt.S.Laxmi, wife of the missing employee, had initially agitated the issue of settlement of pensionary dues. Request for CGA for her son was made only after securing sanction for settlement of the pensionary benefits.
14.So far as the date of request for appointment of Applicant No.2 is concerned, it is to be noted that, after receipt of orders, dt.10.03.2015, in OA.No.323/2015 from this Tribunal, Smt.S.Laxmi sent a letter, dt.25.03.2015, to the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Kukatpally, Hyderabad/R4, requesting to settle the pensionary benefits at the earliest and also to consider her son's case for compassionate appointment as per the rules in force. The said OA was filed by a single Applicant, viz. Smt.S.Laxmi, and the issue pertained to grant of pensionary benefits only and not to the appointment of her son under the CGA Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 17 OA.No.519/2022 scheme. Thus, there is no doubt that the issue regarding appointment to Applicant No.2 was not raised prior to 2015.
15.It is an admitted fact that the employee, late S.Narasimha, had been missing since 08.06.2004. It is also admitted by Applicant No.2, S.Anil Kumar, in his letter, dt.01.05.2017 (Ann.A-5), that the letter, dt.17.06.2011, of Police Station-
Kachiguda, was received intimating that police made all possible efforts to trace out missing person, Sri S.Narasimha, but they could not find the person and the person remained untraced. He also stated that a No Objection Certificate was secured from family members for his compassionate appointment and he may be appointed on compassionate grounds. Thus, there is clearly a gap of 11 years up to 2015 since the time Sri S.Narasimha went missing and in regard to the efforts from the time of police intimation that the employee had remained untraced, between June, 2011, till March, 2015, when the request was made for appointment of her son by Applicant No.1, there was a gap of 3 years and 9 months. In the meantime, all the pensionary benefits were sanctioned to the wife of the missing employee, in the year 2015.
16.As advised by the Respondents, Applicant No.1 furnished family members particulars wherein certain discrepancies were noticed. Applicants have tried to play down the glaring discrepancies in the information furnished by them in pursuance of their request for compassionate appointment. Two major grounds on which clarification was sought by the department were as follows:
i. The mismatch of father's name of Sri S.Anil Kumar/Applicant No.2, in the office records as compared to the entry in his SSC certificate. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 18 OA.No.519/2022 ii. Age of the missing employee vis-à-vis that of his eldest daughter, where the gap is of 9 years, 1 month & 7 days only.
The above discrepancies are certainly minor in nature and the department was right in seeking clarifications on both the points. This led to further delay in processing of the case for CGA
17.The Central Screening Committee (CSC) has gone into great detail, while re-
examining the case of the applicants, in accordance with the instructions on compassionate appointment issued by the DoP&T, in its letter, dt.16.01.2013 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank vs. Ajith Kumar GK in Civil Appeal No.255 of 2025, vide order, dt.11.02.2025.
18.Since the Applicants argue that their case be considered under the rules for CGA, prevailing at the time of the request made in the year 2015, we wish to take a look at the DoPT OM, dt.16.01.2013, on the subject 'Consolidated Instructions on compassionate appointment', wherein the paras discussed below are found to be relevant:
(i) " 12. MISSING GOVERNMENT SERVANT Cases of missing Government servants are also covered under the scheme for compassionate appointment subject to the following conditions:-
(a) A request to grant the benefit of compassionate appointment can be considered only after a lapse of at least 2 years from the date from which the Government servant has been missing, provided that:
(i) an FIR to this effect has been lodged with the Police,
(ii) the missing person is not traceable, and
(iii) the competent authority feels that the case is genuine;
(b) This benefit will not be applicable to the case of a Government servant:-
(i) who had less than two years to retire on the date from which he has been missing; or Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 19 OA.No.519/2022
(ii) who is suspected to have committed fraud, or suspected to have joined any terrorist organisation or suspected to have gone abroad.
(c) Compassionate appointment in the case of a missing Government servant also would not be a matter of right as in the case of others and it will be subject to fulfillment of all the conditions, including the availability of vacancy, laid down for such appointment under the scheme;
(d) While considering such a request, the results of the Police investigation should also be taken into account; and
(e) A decision on any such request for compassionate appointment should be taken only at the level of the Secretary of the Ministry/Department concerned."
(ii) "19. IMPORTANT COURT JUDGEMENTS The ruling contained in the following judgements may also be kept in view while considering cases of compassionate appointment:-
(a) The Supreme Court in its judgement dated April 8, 1993 in the case of Auditor General of India and others vs. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao [(1994) 1 SCC 192] has held that appointment on grounds of descent clearly violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution; but if the appointment is confined to the son or daughter or widow of the Government servant who died in harness and who needs immediate appointment on grounds of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family to supplement the loss of income from the bread winner to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family, it is unexceptionable.
x x x
(iii) The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.
(iv) Offering compassionate appointment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant is legally impermissible.
x x x
(vi) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
x x x
(d) The Supreme Court has ruled in the cases of Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Dinesh Kumar [JT 1996 (5) S.C. 319] on May 7, 1996 and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs. Smt A. Radhika Thirumalai [JT 1996 (9) S.C. 197] on October 9, 1996 that appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose.
x x x Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 20 OA.No.519/2022
(f) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006 filed by Local Administration 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". (O.M. No. 14014/3/2011-Estt.(D) dated 26.07.2012)"
In this case, the govt. employee, who went missing in 2004, was declared untraced in 2011. Therefore, the "reasonable period", allowed for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as mentioned in para 19 (vi) of the DoPT Memo cited above, cannot stretch till 2015 or 2017. We do not agree with the applicants' contention that 'there is no time limit for compassionate appointment'. There has been considerable lapse of time in submission of their request for compassionate appointment, which has not been satisfactorily explained by them.
19.In the light of the above discussion, we find that the applicants have failed to make out their case. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) Administrative Member 13.03.2026 /ps/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ST= Telangana, [email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber= PALLI 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41 813a4eb590082, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, telephoneNumber= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22 SANDHYA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.18 12:39:04+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0