Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Raju Sharma vs Textiles on 2 April, 2024
(Reserved)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.1007/2022
This the 2nd Day of April, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)
Raju Sharma a/a 37 years, S/o late Kripa Shankar Sharma, R/o Village
Shyam Nagar, Post - Bhopat Patti, District Farukhabad.
...........Applicant
By Advocates: Shri O.P. Gupta
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Textile, Govt. of
India, Department of Handicrafts, New Delhi.
2. Development Commissioner, (Handicrafts), Ministry of Textiles,
Govt. of India, West Block No.7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066.
3. Director Handicrafts (Central Region), Office of Development
Commissioer, (Handicrafts), Kendriya Bhawan, 7th Floor, Hall-3,
Sector - H, Aliganj, Lucknow 2260.24.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J) This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on 14.11.2022 for quashment of the order dated 12.08.2022 which was communicated to the applicant on 20.09.2022 and also for direction to the respondents for reconsideration of the case of the applicant filed for compassionate appointment as per order dated 25.02.2022 passed by CAT, Allahabad in OA No.1387/2016 decided on 25.02.2022. The relief claimed in Para-8 of the OA is as under:-
"i. To quash the impugned rejection order dated 12.08.2022/Communication letter dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure A-6) and further to direct the Page No.2 respondents to re-consider the candidature of applicant for the compassionate appointment onpriority basis in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 25.02.2022 as well as the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed in the decision of Malya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa dated 20.05.2022 being a similarly situated case.
Ii. Any other order or direction which may be fit under the circumstances of present cae may also be passed. "
2. As per OA, the father of the applicant Kripa Shankar Sharma, died in harness on 30.01.2003. After the death of the father, the mother of the applicant Kamlesh Sharma moved an application on 13.05.2003 for granting the compassionate appointment to her son Raju Sharma, who is the applicant in this case. After sending the aforesaid application, the department advised her vide letter dated 03.07.2003 to submit the application in prescribed format therefore the mother of the applicant submitted the application in the prescribed format which was forwarded to the Development Commissioner, New Delhi on 16.04.2004.
3. It is again submitted by the applicant that when any decision was not communicated then he filed writ petition No.1423/2009 before the Allahabad High Court, but the said writ petition was withdrawn with the liberty to move the application before the CAT. Before the withdrawal of the aforesaid writ, the letter dated 01.10.2015 received by the applicant in which it was communicated that because no post was available, therefore, after three years his name was removed from the list of candidates prepared for compassionate appointment in pursuance of the department of DoP&T instruction dated 05.05.2003 and no further action regarding compassionate appointment is possible. After receiving the aforesaid and after withdrawal of the Writ Petition, Page No.3 the applicant moved an OA No. 1387 of 2016 before this Tribunal, and the aforesaid OA was decided by the Tribunal on 25.02.2022.
4. It is again submitted by the applicant that as per the direction of the CAT, he moved an application along with the necessary document on 14.03.2022 and personally submitted it in the office of the respondents on 21.03.2022 and 22.03.2022 respectively, but the applicant received the impugned letter by which it was communicated that his claim has been considered and rejected. Therefore, the applicant filed this OA.
5. It is submitted by the applicant that the respondents rejected the aforesaid claim in an arbitrary manner and non-reasoned order has been passed which can also be called non-speaking order. The order is based upon the presumption. No solid ground has been mentioned for the rejection of the claim of the applicant. Therefore, the aforesaid order is liable to be set aside.
6. The respondents filed the Counter Affidavit on 01.03.2023 and opposed the prayer of the applicant. It is submitted by the respondents that the departmental screening committee was held on 01.02.2022 and the name of the applicant along with 110 other candidates was considered in the Board meeting and the applicant was not found eligible as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the appointment on compassionate grounds was not possible. The applicant did not have the required qualifications, therefore, the speaking order dated 12.08.2022 has been passed in compliance with the CAT, Allahabad order dated 25.01.2022. As per the respondents, no ground is found to consider the claim, hence the OA is liable to be dismissed.
Page No.47. It is not in dispute that the father of the applicant late Shri Kripa Shankar Sharma was serving as Instructor on regular basis and he died during the service on 30.01.2003. After his death, the mother of the applicant Kamlesh Sharma moved an application for compassionate appointment to the applicant Raju Sharma on 13.05.2003. On 03.07.2003, She was advised to submit the application upon the prescribed format. Thereafter, she submitted the aforesaid application, and the same was forwarded by letter dated 16.04.2004 Annexue A-1. It again transpires from the record that writ petition No.1423/2009 was filed by the applicant in the year 2009 before the Allahabad High Court. By order Annexure A-1 dated 06.09.2016, the applicant withdraw the aforesaid writ petition with the liberty to file before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It appears from the record that before the withdrawal of the writ petition from the High Court, the applicant also received a letter dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure A-3) from the Government of India, Ministry of Textile. It appears from the aforesaid letter that the applicant submitted the application dated 17.08.2015 to the Prime Minister of India. In reference to the aforesaid letter, it was communicated to the applicant that his name was included in the list up to three years, but there was no any vacancy, hence his name has been deleted from the aforesaid list. The aforesaid letter Annexure A-3 is as under:-
"सेवा में , Dated: 01.10.2015
श्री राजू शर्मा
पत्रु स्वर्गीय कृपाशंकर शर्मा
श्यामनगर पोस्ट- भोपतपट्टी
जिला-फर्रु खाबाद
विषय - अनक
ु म्पा के आधार पर नियक्ति
ु के संबध
ं में ।
महोदय,
कृपया आप अपने पत्र दिनांक 17.08.2015 का संदर्भ में , जो माननीय प्रधान मंत्री भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली को संबोधित है एवं जिसके माध्यम से आपने अनक ु ं पा के आधार पर अपने पिता स्वर्गीय कृपा शंकर शर्मा के स्थान पर नियक्ति ु के संबध ं में लिखा है ।
Page No.5इस संबध ं में आपको सचि ू त किया जाता है कि अनक ु ं पा के आधार पर नियक्ति ु हे त ु कार्मिक एवं प्रशिक्षण अनभु ाग के आदे श दिनांक 5 मई 2003 के अनस ु ार मत ृ क कर्मचारी के मत्ृ यु तिथि के आधार पर संकलित सच ू ी में नाम केवल 3 वर्षों तक ही रखा जाता था। चकि ंू उन तीन वर्षों के अंदर अनक ु ं पा के आधार पर आपकी नियक्ति ु रिक्तियों उपलब्ध न होने के कारण नहीं हो पायी, अतः नियमानस ु ार आपका नाम सच ू ी से निकाल दिया गया एवं अब इस पर कोई कार्यवाही संभव नहीं है ।
भवदीय (रमणींक चन्द) सहायक निदे शक (प्रशासन) संलग्नक उपरीकतानस ु र प्रतिलिपि- सहायक निर्देशक (सी&पी) कार्यालय विकास आयक् ु त (हस्तशिल्प), नई दिल्ली को उनके पत्र दिनांक 20.08.2015 के संदर्भ में इस अनरु ोध के साथ प्रेषित कि ग्रेवारी सच ू ी से नाम हटा दिया जाय।"
8. The applicant earlier filed an OA No.1387/2016, which was decided by the Single Bench of this Tribunal on 25.02.2022. In the aforesaid order, in Para-6 and 7 the following observations/directions were given.
"6. In my view, the whole principle of compassion involves evaluating the issue on its merits rather than taking a decision on technical grounds. Therefore, it would be appropriate to dispose of this O.A. with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents that the application/claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds be placed before the committee constituted for the purpose once again for its evaluation and decision in accordance with the scheme governing compassionate appointments.
7. The applicant is afforded a liberty of four weeks to file a fresh representation along with supporting documents before the competent authority. Subsequently, the respondents are directed to place the case of the applicant in the meeting of Board or Committee for the purpose which is held immediately after receipt of his application. "
9. The applicant submitted the representation (Annexue A-5) on 14.03.2022 by registered post and also submitted copies of the representation in the office of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order (Annexure A-6) on 12.08.2022 Page No.6 by which the claim of the applicant has been rejected. It would be useful to refer the aforesaid order as it is:
"A-50011/1/2020-Admn./1990 Government of India Ministry of Textiles Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) Dated: 12.08.2022 Order Subject: OA No.1387/2016 titled Shri Raju Sharma vs. UOI and others-reg.
Shri Raju Sharma S/o Late Shri Kripa Shankar Sharma has filed the Ο.Α No. 1387/2016 titled Shri Raju Sharma Vs UOI and Others in CAT Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, U.P. with request to Hon'ble CAT to direct the respondent to appoint him under compassionate grounds and also referred his representation dated 14.03.2022 in the said O.A as the same is pending before respondent department for consideration of his appointment under compassionate ground as his family is facing the financial crisis due to the death of his father Late Shri Kripa Shankar Sharma on 30.01.2003 who was posted as Instructor in O/o DC (Handicrafts), Aliganj, Lucknow. The judgment of the case came on 25.02.2022 and the operative para of the judgment is reproduced below: -
In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, "whole principle of compassion involves evaluating the issue on its merits rather than taking a decision on technical grounds. Therefore, it would be appropriate to dispose of the O.A. with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents that the application/claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds be placed before the committee constituted for the purpose once again for its evaluation and decision in accordance with the scheme governing compassionate appointments."
"The applicant is afforded a liberty of four weeks to file a fresh representation along with supporting documents before the competent authority. Subsequently, the respondents are directed to place the case of the applicant in the meeting of Board or Committee for the purpose which is held immediately after receipt of his application."Page No.7
Fact of the, matter is that father of Shri Raju Sharma died on 30.01.2003 when he was about 17 years old and claiming for appointment under compassionate ground to mitigate the financial hardship being faced by them.
In this connection it is pertinent to mention here that the objective of the scheme for appointment under compassionate ground as per the OM of the DOP&T issued from time to time for appointment under compassionate ground has clearly stated vide OM dated 16th January 2013 SI No. 9 (a) that considering requests for compassionate appointment even where the death or retirement on medical grounds of a Government servant took place long back, say five years or so. While considering such belated requests it should, however, be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the Government servant in order to relieve it from economic distress. 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, examination of such cases would call for a great deal of circumstances.
It is also further submitted here that in various judgment of the Hon'ble Court it has been clearly spelt out that offering compassionate appointment as a matter of course, irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is untenable.
It is evident that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years which is adequate proof that family had some dependable means of subsistence and also it is to state that his name was placed before the Departmental Screening Committee on 01.02.2022 and his name could not be considered by the Committee for appointment on Compassionate grounds as he has found ineligible as per the guidelines of DOP&T and according to RR. Taking into consideration of all the aspect of the case and also Important principles laid down in the scheme, the representation of the applicant dated 14.03.2022 has been examined and found that there is no merit on the above representation thus his request to consider for appointment under compassionate ground could not be acceded to and stand "disposed of.
In view of the above facts and as per the direction of the Hon'ble CAT this speaking order/reply is being issued to the applicant in compliance of the order of the CAT Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 25.02.2022.
This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.
......................."
Page No.810. It is submitted by the applicant that in compliance with the aforesaid order of the tribunal dated 25.03.2022, the representation has not been considered by the respondents and the previous decision has been communicated by the respondents through the impugned order. Hence, the aforesaid order is liable to be set aside.
11. On the other side, the respondents' counsel submitted that the representation and the case of the applicant had already been considered in the meeting which was held during the pendency of the aforesaid OA, therefore there was no any requirement for considering the case again by constituting another committee.
12. We perused the record of the previous OA No.1387/2016. It appears that the aforesaid OA was filed on 10.12.2018 and the aforesaid direction was passed on 25.02.2022 vide Annexure A-4. The screening committee held a meeting on 01.02.2022 and considered the name of the applicant along with the other 110 candidates. It was found that the applicant was not eligible, hence the compassionate appointment cannot be granted to him. The aforesaid fact did not come to the notice during the pendency of the previous OA, otherwise, the direction could not be given. The court gave the directions by presuming that the representation has not been decided and the case of the applicant has not been considered, but it appears from the impugned order the case has already been duly considered and the same was considered on merit according to the guidelines issued by the DoP&T and other circulars. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents did not consider the case in the light of the direction of earlier OA. In view of this court, the Page No.9 aforesaid direction was given without notice of the Committee meeting dated 01.02.2022. The aforesaid fact did not come into the notice of court before passing the aforesaid direction and before deciding the aforesaid OA by the Single Bench of the CAT. Hence, it cannot be said that consideration was again required and the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid order.
13. It appears that the father of the applicant was died on 30.01.2003 therefore the claim was arise on the aforesaid date. It also transpires from the letter Annexure A-3, dated 01.10.2015 that the name of the applicant was included up to three years for consideration, but there was no any vacancy and the appointment could not be granted. After the aforesaid period, in 2009, the applicant filed the writ petition and the writ petition was withdrawn in the year 2015. Thereafter, the applicant filed this OA on 14.11.2022. In the aforesaid situation, this fact cannot be ignored that more than 20 years have passed. Whether after 20 years, the compassionate appointment can be granted ?. In view of this court, the aforesaid case cannot be considered because it would be against the scheme of the compassionate appointment.
14. It is established by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that for all government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. In Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. Vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors., 1998(2) SCT 791 = (1998) 5 SCC 192 the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general provision and, being an exception, it should not interfere unduly with the rights of other persons. The Supreme Court held thus:
Page No.10"The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. ........."
15. The principles of law which emerge from the decided cases were summarized in a judgment of the Supreme Court in V. Shivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [2008] 13 SCC 730, formulated those principles thus:
"(a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are a well-recognised exception to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies.
(b) Two well recognized contingencies which are carved out as exceptions to the general rule are:
(i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the bread-winner while in service.
(ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread winner.
Another contingency, though less recognized, is where land holders lose their entire land for a public project, the scheme provides for compassionate appointment to members of the families of project affected persons. (Particularly where the law under which the acquisition is made does provide for market value and solatium, as compensation).
(c) Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the rules governing the service permit such Page No.11 appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in accordance with the scheme governing such appointments and against existing vacancies.
(d) Compassionate appointments are permissible only in the case of a dependent member of the family of the employee concerned, that is, spouse, son or daughter and not other relatives. Such appointments should be only to posts in the lower category, that is, Classes III and IV posts and the crises cannot be permitted to be converted into a boon by seeking employment in Class I or II posts."
16. In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr.,2012[3] ESC 392[SC] = [2012] 11 SCC 307, the Supreme Court held thus:
"9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is based on the premise that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
10. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, the applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased."
Aforesaid principles have been reiterated in a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, 2013 [4] SCT 434 = 2013 [5] AWC 5062 [SC], specifically in the Page No.12 context of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
17. In Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow & Ors. Vs. Prabhat Singh, [2013] 1 UPLBEC 357, the Supreme Court has addressed words of caution in the following observations:
"We are constrained to record that even compassionate appointments are regulated by norms. Where such norms have been laid down, the same have to be strictly followed...The very object of making provision for appointment on compassionate ground, is to provide succour to a family dependent on a government employee, who has unfortunately died in harness. On such death, the family suddenly finds itself in dire straits, on account of the absence of its sole breadwinner. Delay in seeking such a claim, is an antithesis, for the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived. Delay in raising such a claim, is contradictory to the object sought to be achieved... Courts and Tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. Courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve, to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment, to all those who seek a court's intervention. Courts and Tribunals must understand, that every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion, wherein directions are issued for appointment on compassionate ground, could deprive a really needy family requiring financial support, and thereby, push into penury a truly indigent, destitute and impoverished family. Discretion is therefore ruled out. So are, misplaced sympathy and compassion."
18. Once again, in MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh, 2013[4] SCT 541 = AIR 2013 SC 3365, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
" ........... Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing 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. More so, the person claiming such appointment must Page No.13 possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years."
19. In Local Administration Department & Anr. Vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, 2011[2] SCT 763 = AIR 2011 SC 1880, the principle has been set out in the following observations of the Supreme Court:
"..........under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. 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 directlyin 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."
In Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala & Ors.,2012[3] SCT 475 = 2012 [7] SCC 248, aforesaid principles have been reiterated.
20. In the case of H.P. vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653, the Supreme Court in Para-21 and 26 had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. L.I.C. (2005) 10 SCC 289, it is observed and held:-
"21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advertise those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Page No.14 Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract:
"2. ... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment 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 for post held by the deceased. What is 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 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. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non−manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts Page No.15 are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned."
"26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] has adopted the principle 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. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case."
21. Therefore it is established law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
22. The provision of the compassionate appointment has been made for support of the family in case of sudden financial crises. The appointment is not a right but only a concession. Therefore, it should be Page No.16 seen that in each and every case whether any urgency or financial crises is available or not? In M/s Eastern Coalfiled Ltd. vs. Anil Badyakar AIR 2009 SC 2534 (dt. 15.05.2009) the Supreme Court said that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, therefore, cannot be claimed long after the death of an employee in harness. In this case the father of the applicant expired in the year 2003. Therefore after about 20 years it cannot be said that a financial crisis is in existence. After a long period, granting the compassionate appointment is against the real object of the scheme.
23. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.[1994] 4 SCC 138, the Supreme Court explained the basic purpose of providing compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee who has died in harness:
".......... For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
The decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. Vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr., [2004] 7 SCC 271. The same view was followed in Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, 2004[3]SCT 835 = 2004 AIR SCW 4602.
24. In the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Smt. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, AIR 2022 SC 5176 = AIR online 2022 S.C. 471 ,after the death of the deceased employee father of the respondent, who died in harness, the mother of the respondent was given appointment on compassionate ground. The mother of the respondent died on 28.03.2006. That thereafter the elder married sister of the respondent made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, which came to be rejected in the year 2011 on the ground that being a married daughter, she cannot be said to be dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, she is not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. After a period of seven years from the date of death of her mother, again, the respondent being the younger married Page No.17 daughter made an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2013. After seven years of death the direction was given by the High Court for appointment, but Supreme Court set aside the order by saying that High Court committed serious error in directing the appellant to appoint the respondents on compassionate ground.
25. In the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. &Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B., AIR 2022 SC 4766, After a period of approximately 14 years, the daughter applied for the compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court considered the other case laws, said in Para-9.1 and 9.2 as under:-
"9.1 Applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondents shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be again the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.
26. In the case of Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvanayagam, AIR 2011 S.C. 1880, the application was filed by the son of deceased employee after 7-½ years from the date of his father. The wife of deceased has not made an application immediately after the death of the deceased as she suffered from anemia and low blood pressure. The Court found that the explanation given is unacceptable and held that a person suffering from such ailments would greatly prefer the security and certainty of regular job cannot be ground to allow her son's claim. Therefore, the claim of the son of the deceased was denied.
27. In the case of "Eastern Coalfields Ltd M/s. v. Anil Badyakar"AIR 2009 S.C. 2534 (15.05.2009) the Claim for appointment was made and granted after 12 years from the death of employee. The Supreme Court said that it is not a vested right & cannot be claimed after a long time from the death of employee in harness. The Page No.18 said appointment is Contrary to the object of such appointment therefore liable to be cancelled.
28. In the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Gouri Devi, [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6910 of 2021- decided on 18.11.2021 by S.C.] the court again said that Compassionate appointment - Cannot grated after a long time. In the aforesaid case the deceased employee was died in the year 1977. The eldest son approached the authority for compassionate appointment. His case was considered and rejected. After a period of more than 18 years of the death of her husband, the widow of the deceased employee filed a Writ Petition before the High Court with prayer to appoint her second son on compassionate ground. In the said writ petition, the order dated 17.10.1977 rejecting the application for appointment of the eldest son on compassionate ground, was not under challenge. By the order of the High Court, the writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, which was decided vide order dated 28.11.2019, and Tribunal give the direction to reconsider the case in accordance with the scheme of compassionate employment. Thereafter writ petition filed by respondent was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Supreme Court set aside the order of CAT and observed:-
"5.1 At this stage it is required to be noted that in the year 1977, the eldest son made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected in the year 1977 and the same has attained finality. Despite the above fact, second time the application was filed in the year 1996 now to appoint the second son, which was after a period of 18 years. Despite the fact that there was a delay of 18 years in making the second application, unfortunately, the learned Tribunal still directed the appellant to re-consider the case and to appoint the second son on compassionate ground, which has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order. Apart from the fact that in the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench has not at all given any specific independent findings, it can be seen that except narrating the submissions on behalf of the respective parties, there is no further discussion at all on merits and there is no discussion at all on delay and laches. Be that it may, even otherwise, on merits also, the respondent shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of delay and laches.Page No.19
5.2 As held by this Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 delay in pursuing claim/approaching court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished. Before this Court, there was a delay of 07 years in approaching the Court and this Court observed and held that on the ground of delay itself, the heir/dependent of the deceased employee shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground.
5.3 In the case of State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766, this Court had occasion to consider the delay and laches in case of appointment on compassionate ground. By dismissing the claim for appointment on compassionate ground, which was made after a period of four and a half years of death of the deceased employee, it was held that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to general rule that appointment to public office should be made on the basis of competitive merits. It is further observed that once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, applying the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and considering the fact that in the present case the second application was made after a period of 18 years, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the appellant to re-consider the case of the second son of the respondent is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly the same are hereby quashed and set aside. It is observed and held that the second son of the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground as observed and held by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order. Present appeal is allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs."Page No.20
29. Therefore it appears that the applicant is not entitled to get the compassionate appointment and the impugned order is not liable to quash. The respondents consider the case of the applicant on merit, therefore no any ground is found to interfere in the aforesaid impugned order. Hence, the same is dismissed.
30. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of. Registry will take appropriate action in this regard for removing the M.As. No costs.
(Justice B.K. Shrivastava) Member (J) Sushil