Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Deepak Nath vs Defence on 20 February, 2026
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00090/2024 Deepak Nath Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00090 of 2024
Dated, this 20th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Deepak Nath, aged about 34 years, son of Late Shri Ram Pravesh
Prasad, Resident of 65-B, Atal Road Saudagar Mohal Sadar Cantt,
Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence
Government of India, South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. Director General, Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence, Directorate
General Defence Estate, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulaanbatar
Marg, Delhi Cantt-110010.
3. Principal Director, Defence Estates, Central Command, 17-
Carriapa Road, Lucknow Cantt-226002.
4. Defence Estates Officer, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow-226002.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to compassionate appointment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"(1) To quash the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this OA), with all consequential benefits. (2) To offer posting on the post of MTS, with all consequential benefits. (3) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed. (4) Cost of the present case."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant's father, Ram Pravesh Prasad, died in harness on 08.12.2015, leaving behind the Page 1 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00090/2024 Deepak Nath Vs. UOI & Ors. applicant and his three brothers and two sisters, and his mother. When the request of the applicant's mother for the applicant's appointment on compassionate ground did not elicit positive response, the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 351 of 2017 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2017 directing the respondents to consider the applicant's claim. The applicant's claim was rejected by the respondents vide their order dated 11.06.2018. The applicant, then, approached this Tribunal in OA No. 172 of 2019 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2023 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant in light of office memorandum (OM) dated 11.12.2009 or on the post of MTS. The respondents again rejected the applicant's claim vide their order dated 08.11.2023. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant states that the respondents had rejected his claim earlier vide order dated 11.06.2018 on the ground that there was no vacancy in MTS for appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the respondents considered the applicant's case for appointment to the post of UDC, but observed that he did not possess requisite qualification, i.e., degree from recognized university, for that post. He further states that by means of the subsequent order dated 08.11.2023, the respondents have rejected his claim on the ground that if educational qualification is not satisfied, one can be offered appointment on compassionate ground in exceptional circumstances, but in the present case no such exceptional circumstances exist to invoke the relaxation clause of OM dated 11.12.2009. The applicant contends that the order dated 08.11.2023 suffers from non-application of mind as he has the requisite educational qualification for the post of MTS even if he does not have the requisite educational qualification for the post of UDC and so the respondents could not have taken the Page 2 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00090/2024 Deepak Nath Vs. UOI & Ors. ground of the exception clause in OM dated 11.12.2009 to deny him the post of MTS and that the respondents have failed to assign any good ground for not considering his claim for the post of MTS and that the respondents have merely replicated their earlier order dated 11.06.2018 which had already been quashed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 28.04.2023.
4. Per contra, the respondents state that while reconsidering the applicant's case for appointment on compassionate ground in compliance to this Tribunal's order dated 28.04.2023, no merit was found in the case and the speaking order dated 08.11.2023 was issued accordingly. It is contended that from the report of the Directorate, DE, Central Command, the Departmental Committee observed that Shri Bishwanath Prasad, eldest son of Late Ram Pravesh Prasad is working as Office Superintendent in the office of Defence Estates Office, Bhubaneswar Circle; the two other sons are gainfully employed; the widow of the deceased employee is getting monthly family pension; they have a two storeyed residential house registered in the widow's name having market value of approximately Rs. 60 lakh; and, therefore, the applicant does not qualify for appointment on compassionate ground on any post.
5. Heard both the parties.
6.1 Consolidated guidelines on scheme for compassionate appointments have been brought out by the Government of India. The object of the scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying 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 Page 3 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00090/2024 Deepak Nath Vs. UOI & Ors. and to help it get over the emergency [Paragraph 1 of DOPT O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 09.10.1998].
6.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Canara Bank vs Ajithkumar G K 2025 INSC 184, has summarized the well settled principles relating to appointment on compassionate ground as follows:
"11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order):
a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of India v Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475].
b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi (2002) 10 SCC 246].
c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India (2008) 13 SCC 730].
d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468].
e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side-door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009) 11 SCC 453].
f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das (2008) 15 SCC 560].
g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (2009) 13 SCC 600].
h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 209].
i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India v. Amrita Sinha (2021) 20 SCC 695].Page 4 of 9
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00090/2024 Deepak Nath Vs. UOI & Ors.
j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar (2009) 13 SCC 112].
k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138].
l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore (2011) 13 SCC 13].
m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC 162].
n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari (2012) 9 SCC 545].
o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar (2000) 7 SCC 192].
p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara Bank (supra)].
q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh (2007) 2 SCC 481].
r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered [see Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh (1998) 5 SCC 452]. Page 5 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00090/2024 Deepak Nath Vs. UOI & Ors.
s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of "not very well-to-do". [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary (2004) 7 SCC 271].
t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying- in-harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami (2012) 11 SCC 307, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh (2006) 7 SCC 350, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand (2004) 12 SCC 487 and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265].
u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)].
v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL (2000) 6 SCC 493] w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653].
x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718].
y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571].
z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma (2007) 8 SCC 148].
(emphasis supplied) It emerges from the well settled principles of law on appointment on compassionate grounds summarized in Ajithkumar G K (supra) that such appointment, being an exception to the rule of equality [Anju Jain (supra)], indigence of the family is a pre-condition [B Kishore (supra)] and the financial condition of the family has to be evaluated [Shashank Page 6 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00090/2024 Deepak Nath Vs. UOI & Ors. Goswami (supra) et al] without which such appointment would be legally impermissible [Amrita Sinha (supra)] and in direct conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Niraj Kumar Singh (supra)]. 6.3 A perusal of the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the respondents brings out the following in regard to the financial condition of the deceased employee's family:
"4. AND WHEREAS, on scrutiny of the available records, report submitted by Dte. DE, CC, Lucknow as well as application submitted by Shri Deepak Nath for compassionate appointment, the Committee constituted for appointment on compassionate grounds, has observed that the applicant mentioned his mother (wife of the deceased employee), his unmarried sister and himself as the dependent family members of the deceased Government servant, whereas as per official records, Late Ram Parvesh Prasad during his service has nominated Smt. Jagroshini Devi (Wife), Shri Vishwanath Prasad (Son), Shri Santosh Kumar (Son), Shri Ajit Prasad (Son) and Shri Deepak Prasad (Son) in the nomination form of his Provident Fund. From the existing records, it was observed that Shri Vishwanath Prasad, son of Late Ram Parvesh Prasad is working as Office Superintendent in the office of Defence Estates Officer, Bhubaneswar Circle. The two other sons of the deceased employee are gainfully employed as per report of Directorate, Defence Estates, Central Command, Lucknow. Directorate has further informed that monthly pension to the widow of the deceased is also being paid.
5. AND WHEREAS, Dte. DE, CC, Lucknow informed that when the committee constituted by DEO Lucknow visited the house of the applicant, it was found that applicant along with his two brothers and mother are residing in a two storeyed residential house, built in 800 sq ft area which is registered in the name of the widow of the deceased employee. The market value of the said house was assessed as Rs. 60 lakhs (approx).
5.1 AND WHEREAS, the applicant claimed that his unmarried sister i.e. Ms. Rakhi is dependent and residing with them. However, the committee constituted by DEO Lucknow has mentioned in its report that on local enquiry, it was revealed that sister of the applicant has already been got married. Officials who visited the house have also not found his sister residing in the said house and no substantial documents corroborating the claim of the applicant regarding dependency of sister could be produced by the applicant. Though the applicant stated that he was unemployed, the DEO, Lucknow Circle has reported that he is a casual worker who drives hired vehicles occasionally.
6. AND WHEREAS, after considering the fact that out of four sons of the deceased employee are gainfully employed, three of them are residing in the same house which is recorded in the name of wife of deceased employee, the fourth son, who is the applicant, is also a casual wage earner and the widow of the deceased is getting monthly pension, the Competent Authority doesn't find the family Page 7 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00090/2024 Deepak Nath Vs. UOI & Ors.
to be indigent. Therefore, the criteria of exceptional circumstances as mentioned in the DoP&T OMs dated 11.12.2009 and 09.07.2017 do not appear to be satisfied in the instant case warranting relaxation in educational qualification.
...
10. NOW THEREFORE, instant claim of Shri Deepak Nath for compassionate appointment has been considered by the Competent Authority i.e. DG, DE in compliance of the order dated 28.04.2023 of Ld. CAT, Lucknow Bench and no exceptional circumstances have been found in the instant case to offer an appointment to any Group C post of DE Organization on compassionate ground. Similarly the Competent Authority did not find any merit in the claim for appointment as MTS also in view of the findings in the paragraphs supra. Hence, the instant claim of Shri Deepak Nath is hereby rejected by the Competent Authority."
(emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above that the respondents rejected the applicant's claim for appointment on compassionate ground as they did not find the family of the deceased employee to be indigent considering the employment status of all four brothers, including the applicant, the dependency status of applicant's sister, the monthly family pension being disbursed to the applicant's mother and the house property owned by her.
6.4 The only ground the applicant cites in challenging the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 is that when this Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2023 in OA No. 172 of 2019, directed the respondents to consider the applicant's claim in light of OM dated 11.12.2009 or on the post of MTS, it was not open for the respondents to reject his claim for Group C post as well as MTS without any good ground. However, it is noted that the penurious or the indigent condition of the family is an essential requirement for appointment on compassionate ground (ref. paragraph 6.1 and 6.2 above) and that this Tribunal did not record any finding on this aspect in the judgment and order dated 28.04.2023 in OA No. 172 of 2019. In view of this position, it cannot be said that the respondents were barred from assessing the financial condition of the deceased employee's family and taking a Page 8 of 9 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00090/2024 Deepak Nath Vs. UOI & Ors. decision based on such assessment. Further, it is observed that the respondents' assessment of the financial condition of the deceased employee's family is based on the report from the local office, including a visit to the residence of the family, and that none of the facts relating to the financial condition of the family have been rebutted by the applicant. In conclusion, it is held that the applicant's challenge to the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 of the respondents, assessing that the deceased employee's family is not indigent and rejecting the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment, has no legs to stand. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit.
7.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A) vidya Vidya Ben Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Waghela Date: 2026.02.23 15:06:20 +05'30' Page 9 of 9