Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Balna Devi Urf Balwanti Devi vs General Manager N C Rly on 20 December, 2023
1
Reserved on 13.12.2023
Pronounced on 20.12.2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Original Application No.689 of 2017
Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member- (Administrative)
1. Smt. Balna Devi urf Balwanti Devi aged about 59 years Wife of
Late Jawahar (ex Trackman at Panki under SSE (P.Way ) II, North
Central Railway Kanpur ) R/o Village-Bhatewara, P.O. Kalana,
District- Mirzapur.
2. Raj Mani Son of Late Jawahar (ex Trackman at Panki under SSE
(P. Way ) II, North Central Railway Kanpur ) R/o Village-Bhatewara,
P.O. Kalana, District- Mirzapur.
3. Ram Bahadur Son of Late Jawahar (ex Trackman at Panki under
SSE (P. Way ) II, North Central Railway Kanpur) R/o Village-
Bhatewara, P.O. Kalana, District- Mirzapur.
...........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri L.S. Kushwaha
Versus
1. Union of India, through General Manager, North Central Railway,
H.Q.'s Office, Allahabad-211033.
2. General Manager, North Central Railway, H.Q.'s Office,
Subedarganj, Allahabad-211033.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, N.C. Railway, DRM's Office,
Allahabad.
------------Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Raj Pal Singh
2
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member-(Administrative) Shri L.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By way of this original application the applicants have sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) The Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the original records relating to the impugned order dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure A-1) along with order dated 4.3.2014 (Annexure A-2) along comparative records of compassionate ground appointments offered to the wards of the deceased railway employees in last 10 years and financial criteria, if any, laid down by railway Board for consideration of compassionate ground appointments in case of death of a railway employee or in other cases related to dying in harness rules.
(ii) The Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.2.2017 (Annexure A-1) along with order dated 4.3.2014 (Annexure A-2) passed by the respondent no.3 and direct the respondent no.2 i.e. General Manager, N.C. Railway, Allahabad or Chairman/Ministry of Railways to re-
consider the compassionate appointment to the applicant on priority under the instructions of Railway Board in order to mitigate the hardships being faced by the family of the deceased railway employee due to sudden death during service.
(iii) Any other suitable order or direction which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award cost in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of widow applicant Late Jawahar was appointed in Railway service as Trackman at Panki, North Central Railway, Kanpur who died on 22.10.2013 during service due to serious illness. Husband of applicant no.1/Late Jawahar was issued Identity Card and Provident Fund Certificate on 01.04.2009. Widow-applicant was not sanctioned family pension at the time of passing of impugned order dated 4.3.2014 for her 3 livelihood. PPO No.1314020651 was issued on 17.04.2014 granting family pension. After the death of her husband Late Jawahar on 22.10.2013, widow applicant no.1 applied for consideration of compassionate appointment to her eldest son (named Raj Mani) of the deceased railway employee Late Jawahar. A declaration on affidavit was also submitted by Raj Mani that on being given compassionate appointment, if he fails to maintain the family of the deceased railway employee, his compassionate appointment should be cancelled under the Rules. Request for compassionate appointment was submitted through the Sr. Subordinate concerned duly filled up on the prescribed format with all requisite documents and affidavits, educational certificates and OBC certificates of Raj Mani (Applicant no.2) within time limit. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad rejected the request of compassionate appointment of the eldest son of the deceased railway employee named Raj Mani (Applicant no.1) vide impugned order dated 04.03.2014. The impugned order was passed without giving any cogent reason. Due to sudden death of husband of the applicant no.1 the whole family has been living in financial hardship and distress as none of her sons in the family are employed anywhere. Widow (applicant no.1) is now granted family pension @ Rs.5815/- per month plus I.R. but it was wrongly stated in the impugned order that she was granted family pension for her livelihood without confirming even the amount of family pension which is too small to support the whole family. Only two reasons were assigned while rejecting the case of applicant no.2 (Raj Mani). The first plea taken is that all sons of the deceased railway employee are major and married and the second plea is that widow (applicant no.1) has been granted family pension for her livelihood. The impugned order dated 04.03.2014 for rejection of compassionate appointment of applicant no.2 is contrary to rules. DRM, Allahabad has no jurisdiction to frame their own rules for considering compassionate appointment contrary to statutory instructions issued by the Ministry of Railways. In terms of the provisions made in Para III of the Master Circular No.16 one ward is to be considered and given 4 compassionate appointment in case of death of Railway employee during service under dying in harness rules. Widow (applicant no.1) has submitted detailed representation dated 2.5.2014 by registered post to respondent no.2 endorsing its copy to the Chairman, Railway Board against the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 but no response was made. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 the applicant has filed OA No.1419 of 2014-Smt. Balna Devi urf (alias) Balwanti Devi and Anr. Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. which was disposed of by the Tribunal at the admission stage itself on 11.11.2016 with a direction to give representation to the concerned authority as married son is entitled for compassionate appointment. However, impugned order dated 4.3.2014 was not quashed and set aside. In pursuance of order dated 11.11.2016 applicant no.1 again submitted fresh representation dated 02.12.2016 for reconsideration of compassionate appointment of her elder son and in case he is not considered due to upper age limit then her youngest son should be considered for compassionate appointment. In the representation dated 02.12.2016 it is also pointed out that in case of Smt. Neelam Saxena, to consider compassionate appointment of her daughter was rejected by the DRM/NCR/Allahabad on similar grounds, was re-considered by the DRM Allahabad when her OA No.642 of 2012-Smt. Neelam Saxena and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. was pending before this Tribunal and similar pleas of rejection of compassionate appointment of her daughter being major and the widow getting family pension for her livelihood, was taken by the authority concerned. In this regard it has been stated that "DRM/N.C. Railway Allahabad suo-moto reviewed the case for compassionate appointment and her unmarried and major daughter was given compassionate appointment". No other plea as given in case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment of Umesh Kumar Nagpal was taken and her daughter was given compassionate appointment during the pendency of aforesaid OA No.642 of 2012. On the fresh representation dated 2.12.2016, DRM/NCR, Allahabad passed order rejecting compassionate appointment of any of her sons taking different pleas though 5 contrary to the guidelines and rules laid down by the Railway Board, Tribunals and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was communicated to the widow applicant no.1 vide impugned order dated 23.02.2017. DRM Allahabad agreed that the age factor and marital status of the ward of the deceased employee do not come in the way of compassionate ground appointment. But DRM, N.C. Railway, Allahabad took the plea of circular of Railway Board dated 28.2.1995 in which it has been stated that "mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family for compassionate appointment in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 4.5.1994 in the case of Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs State of Haryana and Ors. (JT 1994 (3) SC 525). It was further stated by the DRM that as instructions of Railway Board dated 6.1.2009 other factors viz. number of dependents, liabilities and assets left by the deceased railway employee, income of any members of the family etc. With regard to plea of identical case of Smt. Neelam Saxena taken by the widow applicant was replied that "request for compassionate appointment in the case of Smt. Neelam Saxena applicant of OA No.642 of 2012 reviewed by the DRM and he unmarried daughter was given compassionate appointment has also been looked into by me. The case of Smt. Neelam Saxena has a merit for review because the deceased employee has left behind him the liability of marriage of his daughter. In the present case all the sons are married. Therefore, there is a difference of the merit in the present case and in Smt. Neelam Saxena's case "Request of widow applicant for compassionate appointment of her eldest son Raj Mani or youngest son Shri Ram Bahadur was rejected because it was not feasible to accept her request as per rules." Representation dated 2.12.2016 was also rejected vide impugned order dated 23.02.2017. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.02.2017 applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 17/18.3.2017 to the respondent no.1. Representation dated 17/18.03.2017 (Annexure-10) is still pending before the authorities concerned. If a poor family of the deceased trackman like the applicant is not considered for compassionate appointment, then there is no justification to consider other 6 cases of compassionate appointment in case of death of railway employees of running categories of group "C'', Senior subordinates Group 'C', Group 'B' and Group 'A' railway services employees on the basis of Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case. If once it is taken for granted the yard-stick of monetary conditions viz. payment of pension/family pension and other payment of settlement dues and financial status to deny compassionate appointment, the respondent no.3 i.e. DRM/NCR, Allahabad has no justification to give compassionate appointment in any other cases of death of railway employees or medically invalidation to the wards/widows of the deceased railway employees particularly of running staff having paid heavy settlement dues and pension/family pension paid much more than applicant no.1. Moreover, cases of Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. or Anil Malik are not applicable in case of Railways where no criteria of assessment of financial conditions is laid down. As regards, delay in compassionate ground case was on the part of the respondents/Railways itself. Applicants relied on settled case laws of Balbir Kaur and Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India and Ors. (2000) SCC (L&S) 767, General Manager (O&PB) Vs. Kunti Tiwari (2004 (7) SCC 271), Subhash Chand Yadav Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2004 (3) UPLBEC 2926). Till date, representation of applicant has not been decided either by respondent No.2 or by respondent No.4. The above decision of the DRM/Allahabad is highly arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to Rules. The Apex Court in case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2000 SCC (L&S) 895) has held that denial of compassionate appointment in deserving cases perceived as denial of social justice enshrined in Constitution of India. Law Courts cannot be mute spectators to the suffering of a family which has lost its bread winner. It is submitted that no "means test" or any monetary condition was attached by the Railway Board for consideration of compassionate ground appointment. Railway Board circular No.E(NG) II/90/RC/1/117 dated 12.12.1990 in which compassionate appointment is delinked with payment of 7 settlement dues. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:-
(a) In the case of Nirmala Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2002 (1) ATJ 261) the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal has held that "the scheme in the Railways is very liberal. No means test is applied while deciding the request for appointment on compassionate ground. In Railways there is no mention at all that appointment on compassionate ground has to be offered only in cases where indigent circumstances exist. Normally one ward or widow is given compassionate appointment in case of death of a railway employee. There is no such instructions provided in the Rules. It has been held vide para 5 as under:-
"5. The mere fact whether the family has received good amount of terminal benefits consequent upon death of the applicant's husband, cannot be the ground of denying appointment on compassionate grounds to her son and in that view, impugned orders are not legally sustainable."
(b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. (2005 SCC (L&S) 590 has held in paragraph 6 that "... compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of family had received the amounts admissible under the rules..." The terminal benefits received by the widow and family persons could not be taken into account.
(c) The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Union of India Vs Shashank Goswami and Others on 23.5.2006 held in the case of compassionate appointment dismissing the writ petition of Union of India holding that the Tribunal order is in conformity with the judgment laid down in Apex Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation (2005) 10 SCC 289 in which it was laid down that compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under 8 the Rules. The terminal amounts admissible under the rules could not be taken into account.
(d) In case of Balbir Kaur & Another Vs. Steel Authority of India and Ors.
(2000 SCC (L&S) 767) it was held that family benefit scheme, assuring family payment to family of deceased employee, held on facts, was not a substitute for compassionate appointment.
(e) The Tribunal in the case of Chetraveer Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (2006(1) ATJ 99) has held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground that the widow had received terminal/retiral benefits and pension is payable to her.
The second plea of the DRM/N.C. Railway, Allahabad that widow applicant is getting family pension, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have worked on the basis of pick and choose policy.
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, applicants have filed this original application and requested to allow the original application.
4. Respondents in their counter affidavit have mentioned that both the impugned orders dated 25.2.2017 and 04.03.2014 passed by the competent authorities are speaking orders and are in accordance with law. Respondents have submitted that after the death of husband of applicant no.1, she was granted provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, GIS, other dues and she is also getting family pension. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 04.05.1994 in the case of Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & others and Anil Malik Vs. State of Haryana and others. Operative portion of the order is reproduced below:-
".....As a rule, appointment in the public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit.......However, to this general rule.......there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and..... one such exception is that dependent of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without 9 any means of livelihood. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. Further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family."
5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the request for compassionate appointment in the case of Smt. Neelam Saxena, applicant of OA No.642 of 2012 was reviewed during the pendency of her original application by the DRM and after considering the case her unmarried daughter was given compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that in the case of Neelam Saxena has merit for review because the deceased employee has left behind the liability of marriage of his daughter whereas in the present case, all four sons of the deceased employee are married and they have their own families, which are being looked after by them. The order darted 25.2.20217 rejecting the claim of the applicant has been passed in accordance with law after considering all full facts of the case. Hence the original application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
6. In his rejoinder affidavit applicant has reiterated almost the same issues which has been narrated in the original application. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case of G.P. Dwivedi ex Guard & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (O.A. No.1314 of 2014) decided on 25.05.2017 in which order and judgment has since been implemented as married and major son named Shri Prabhakar Dwivedi of Shri G.P. Dwivedi, ex Guard/Allahabad was given compassionate appointment by DRM/N.C. Railway, Allahabad vide letter No.CS/DPO/CG/Cj, Shre/6389 dated 23.11.2017. It is also submitted that in the case of railway employees dying in harness as no "means test" is applied in case of considering compassionate appointment in railways as per order and 10 judgment in the case of Nirmala Devi Vs. Union of India and Ors. (OA No.299 of 2001 decided by Division Bench of CAT Jaipur on 19.11.2001 and by the Apex Court in several cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, (205 SCC (L&S) 590 has held in paragraph 6 that ".....compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that nay member of family had received the amounts (i.e. settlement benefits) admissible under the Rules." In the cases of Mumtaz Yunus Muleri (Smt.) Vs. State of Maharastra (2008(2) SCC (L&S) 1077 and in the case of V. Sivamurty Vs. State of Andhara Pradesh & Ors. (2009 (1) SLJ (SC) 69, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely because widow was getting family pension. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed the view in the judgment of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation (2005) 10 SCC 289/2005 SCC (L&S) 590 holding that compassionate appointment dying in harness cannot be refused on ground that any member of family had received some benefits and family pension and terminal benefits was being paid to the widow. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to re-consider claim of applicant for compassionate appointment within three months of order. In the case of Valsala Kumar Devi Vs. Director, Higher Sec. Education & Ors. (2007 SCC (L&S) 936) and in several other Apex Court judgments viz. Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. Steel Authority of India and Ors. (2000) SCC (L7S) 767, General manager (O & PB) Vs. Kunti Tiwari (2004 (7) SCC 271), Subhash Chand Yadav Vs. State Bank of India and Others (2004 (3) UPLBEC 2926), similar views have been expressed. In the case of Shri Dashrath married son of Late Tirthraj ex Trackman working under SSE/P/Way, Chunar wife of Late Tirthraj has died earlier. The case of the applicants is identical with the case of Dasrath but in the case of applicants, it is still being denied to the applicant which shows arbitrariness and clear cut case of discrimination. In the case of death of Late Himanshu Mohan Vs. J.A. Grade Officer in Signal & Telecom, Department of Railway his wife was given compassionate appointment in group 'C' post fixing pay at the maximum pay as 11 Public Relation Inspector by the General Manager, N.C. Railway, Allahabad despite the fact that she was paid heavy amount of settlement dues and family pension.
7. Heard both the parties and gone through the records provided by applicant as well as respondents.
8. This Tribunal in a similar matter has passed the order in OA No. 635 of 2014, citing the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. Etc. in Civil Appeal No.8842-8855 of 2022 decided on 03.03.2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of in paras 7.1 and 7.2 has held as under :-
"7.1. It may be appropriate to refer to the following decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to guide determination of claims for compassionate appointment.
i) In Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, this Court observed that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.
ii) In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court observed that the object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant. That the object being to enable 12 the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome.
iii) In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, ("Hakim Singh") this Court placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the concerned authority. This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession.
iv) This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred in the family of the deceased as a result of death of an employee who had served the State and died while in service. It was further observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be made available to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee.
v) There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea 19 being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC
162. In the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it was declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.13
vi) In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that the government employee (father of the applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held that granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a considerable amount of time after the death of the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for compassionate appointment.
vii) In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have been extracted as under:
"41. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the Respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by way of pension be included in the income statement of the family. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part 14 of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment."
7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:
i) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
ii) Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
iii) That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
iv) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source".
On the basis of above consideration, this Tribunal dismissed the OA No.635 of 2014.
9. Analysis of the documents available shows that competent authority has applied their mind and passed a reasoned and speaking order based on rules/regulations prevalent as well as judgment of Supreme Court of India. The case relied upon by the applicant does not cover the facts of the present original application and are older ones. The recent judgment of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwary and Others covers all the relevant issues related to compassionate appointment in detail and has finalized the guidelines for appointment on compassionate ground. 15
10. The applicant in the original application has received retiral benefits and her sons are major, married and living separately. They are leading normal life. It cannot be said that family is leaving in distressed financial condition and is in immediate need of compassionate appointment.
11. Compassionate appointment cannot be taken as a matter of right and this is to provide sucker to family of the deceased due to sudden loss of earning member. Once the family has survived for such a long time, the claim of the applicant does not deserve any merit and based on the above discussions relief claimed in the original application is devoid of merit and accordingly liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that applicant has not been able to establish his claim. The original application is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, accordingly the original application is dismissed. No Costs.
All associated MAs are disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) Member (Administrative) /Neelam/