Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sandeep K vs Icar on 30 December, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00383/2024
Tuesday, this the 30th day of December, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sandeep K., aged 32 years,
S/o. Late K.Karthikeyan, (Skilled Supporting Staff (SSS)
CPCRI, Regional Station Krishanpuram P.O.,
Kayamkulam 690 533 -Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. R Rajasekharan Pillai]
Versus
1. The Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR)
Represented by its Secretary, Krishi Bhawan
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Director, ICAR-CPCRI, (Central Plantation Crops Research
Institute) Represented by its the Director,
Kudlu P.O. Kasaragod 671 124.
3. The Head ICAR-CPCRI,
Regional Station Krishnapuram P.O.
Kayamkulam 690 533 -Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs. Sreekala T.K]
The application having been heard on 19.11.2025, the Tribunal on
30.12.2025 delivered the following order:
Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30'
O.A.No.383/2024 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is the son of late Karthikeyan, who was working as Skilled Supporting Staff under the 3rd respondent, the Head ICAR-CPCRI, Regional Station, Krishnapuram, Kayamkulam. He passed away on 25.09.2011 while in service, after putting in 28 years 2 months and 18 days of service. The applicant belongs to OBC community. According to the applicant, soon after the demise of the father, on 04.02.2012, his mother submitted Annexure-A1 application in the proforma for employment under the compassionate appointment scheme before the 3rd respondent. Even though repeated reminders were given, the applications were not considered. Thereafter, under Annexure-A6 they were asked to appear before the 2 nd respondent with certain documents. Pursuant to the same, they visited the 2 nd respondent in October 2023 and submitted all the documents. Though they were assured that the applicant will be given employment assistance under the compassionate appointment scheme, that was not done, following which the applicant has approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act seeking a direction to the respondents to take up the case of the applicant under the compassionate appointment scheme and pass Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 3 appropriate orders to appoint him as expeditiously as possible.
2. The grievance of the applicant is that even though he had submitted the representation for compassionate appointment soon after the demise of the father, for over 12 years that remained not considered. Meanwhile, he is given to understand that some people who are more opulent and affluent than the applicant were considered and given appointment. Even though the compassionate appointment committee had recommended the name of the applicant for appointment, the competent authority has not given him appointment and he suspects that his case might have been kept in abeyance.
3. According to the applicant, being an OBC candidate, he should be given appointment under the 5% quota earmarked for compassionate appointment within the 27% quota. There is no justification in not considering his application despite he satisfied all the necessary criteria for appointment. He has also understood that dependents of two other employees, who died in harness much later than the demise of his father were given appointment ignoring the legitimate claim of the applicant, which is illegal, unjust and unconscionable. Therefore he has approached the Tribunal seeking the above stated reliefs.
Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 4
4. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent filed reply, denying the allegations in the O.A. According to them, the application submitted by the applicant was considered on seven occasions, that is on 05.10.2013, 21.01.2018, 25.04.2018, 09.06.2020, 27.07.2021, 28.12.2023 and 08.02.2024, and on all those occasions since there were other candidates who were more in distressing condition, had to be preferred over the applicant and therefore, he could not be given appointment under the scheme.
5. According to the respondents, they have considered the application for compassionate appointment submitted by him strictly in terms of Annexure-R2(a) consolidated instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training dated 16.01.2013. The respondents had to take a decision basing on various parameters like liabilities left by the deceased employee, retirement benefits received by the family of the deceased employee, presence of earning member in the family/male less than 25 years, size of the family, presence of dependent children, age of the youngest dependent child, essential needs (dwelling educational needs of the children), social status of the deceased employee, situation of penurious condition of the bereaved family and age at the time of death of the Government servant.
Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 5 The application submitted by the applicant was considered on the basis of these parameters along with other candidates and having regard to the assets and liabilities of the family of the deceased Government servant, benefits received by the family, monthly income etc. the respondents have come to the conclusion that the applicant is not a fit person to be recommended for appointment under the scheme. So, they have prayed for rejecting the O.A. The respondents also cited various authorities to support their contentions in the reply.
6. The applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating that two other persons have been granted compassionate appointment though their financial background was more affluent than that of the applicant. Those two persons were in more opulent circumstance than that of the applicant. Still, the claim of the applicant was not considered. The criteria for offering compassionate appointment depends on the factors like the economic status of the deceased employee and the annual income of the family. The applicant does not have permanent income, he ekes out his livelihood by doing plumbing works occasionally. He has to look after his wife, daughter and the mother; though the mother has pension, she has to visit the hospital frequently due to age related ailments. Thus the applicant contended that getting employment is Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 6 the need of the hour and his penurious condition was not considered by the committee, which is illegal and therefore the Original Application is liable to be allowed.
7. The respondents filed an additional reply denying the contentions in the rejoinder. At this time, they also produced Annexures-R2(b) to R2(d) documents to support the contention that the cases were considered in a most judicious manner, but the applicant could not be appointed for reasons, which are obvious.
8. We heard Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Sreekala T.K., learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, in great detail.
9. Adjournment for hearing had taken place on various dates. At the earlier stage of hearing, when the learned counsel for the applicant had disputed the contention that the case of the applicant was considered by the compassionate appointment committee appointed by the respondents, as insisted by the learned counsel, this Tribunal directed the respondents to produce the relevant documents, supporting their contentions. Accordingly, Annexures-R2(e) to R2(k) were produced to show that the case of the applicant was considered in detail, but he could not be appointed since he did Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 7 not secure the maximum points vis-a-vis the number of vacancies which were available for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme.
10. After hearing counsel on both sides and perusing the documents made available before the Tribunal, we are convinced that the applicant is not justified in getting any relief as claimed by him. It is noticed that the respondents could not produce all the documents as contended by them. For instance they said that the case of the applicant was considered at least seven times, that is on 05.10.2013, 21.01.2018, 25.04.2018, 09.06.2020, 27.07.2021, 28.12.2023 and 08.02.2024. But the minutes or score cards in respect of all these considerations are not made available. Still, from the documents made available, we are convinced that the case of the applicant was considered on numerous occasions, but since the benefits under the compassionate appointment scheme has to be granted to the most deserving person, the applicant did not reach the benchmark on the respective occasions and thus he could not be appointed.
11. It is the settled proposition that the compassionate appointment can be considered only against 5% vacancies occurring in a year. Category of the candidate whether he is SC/ST, OBC etc. has little relevance. The consideration had to be limited in accordance with the vacancies during the Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 8 relevant period of the recruitment year.
12. First and foremost proposition that comes up in our mind is that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right to be claimed by a candidate. It is a concession granted to the next of kin of an employee who died in harness, employment assistance is intended to tide over the financial stringency that occurred to the family due to the sudden disappearance of the sole breadwinner of the family. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das [(2008) 15 SCC 560] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the point as follow:
"15........... This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefore, viz., that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right."
13. It is also the settled proposition that compassionate appointment Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 9 being an exception to the general rule, appointment could be given only in warranting situations and the circumstances existing in granting appointments and guiding factors should be the financial condition of the family on the death of the employee. So, the respondents were justified in framing a scheme and considering all the applications together received under the scheme and to make objective evaluation of the same based on the laid down parameters. After evaluating various documents like Annexures-R2(f), R2(h), R2(j), R2(k) and R2(l), we are convinced that the respondents have considered the application submitted by the applicant in proper perspective, but he could not be appointed due to valid reasons, which cannot be faulted.
14. The respondents have produced numerous documents as directed by the Tribunal. Even though those documents are not fully in terms of the contentions in the reply that on seven specific occasions the application submitted by the applicant were considered, still we are satisfied that on numerous occasions his eligibility was tested and he could not be appointed for good reasons.
15. Annexure-R2(e) shows that cases of 11 candidates, including the applicant were considered by the committee on 07.08.2017, but the score card or other proceeding sheet in respect of such consideration is not made Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 10 available, so that we cannot make any inference from them. However, from the subsequent documents it is clear that at that time he was not found suitable and that was how his case was carried over to numerous subsequent occasions to 20.01.2018, 09.06.2020, 27.07.2021, 28.12.2023 and 08.02.2024.
16. Annexure-R2(f) indicates that on 20.01.2018 there were 11 applications to be considered and having regard to the number of vacancies only four persons could be recommended for appointment. Annexure-R2(f) at page 13 of the statement is the minutes of the meeting held on 20.01.2018, which indicates that 11 candidates were considered; following the parameters, four persons who got maximum scores out of 100 were recommended for appointment. The name of the applicant finds place at sl.No.5, where he got only 24 marks whereas candidates who obtained maximum marks, namely 54, 46, 45 and 44 respectively were recommended for selection. It is also clear that there were other candidates also who got more marks apart from four candidates selected at this occasion.
17. R2(h) evidences the minutes of the selection held on the basis of the meeting held on 09.06.2020, where eight candidates were considered including the applicant. The number of vacancies were two. On this occasion, the applicant was awarded 30 points whereas the candidates who obtained Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 11 60 and 41 respectively were recommended for appointment. There were other candidates who got 30 points and 31 points. That means, on this occasion also the applicant could not have been considered for appointment for the reason that only candidates who obtained maximum points who are in worce penurious condition could have been suggested for appointment.
18. R2 (i) is the particulars of the meeting held on 08.06.2020, wherein applications for the years 2018 and 2019 were considered. There were one vacancy each in both the financial years, and the documents show that for the year 2018, 9 candidates were considered, out of which only one person could be appointed; thus the person who secured maximum score, that is 51.50 was appointed, whereas the applicant had secured only 24 points. Similarly, in 2019 also, the applicant was not selected for the very same reason.
19. The case of the applicant was again considered in 2022 which is evident of Annexure-R2 (l) where 9 candidates were considered for the year 2022 and 2023. There were only two vacancies, one vacancy each for each year and during 2022, 9 candidates were considered and the applicant got only 22 points whereas person who got maximum score, that is 45 was suggested for appointment. During 2023, 8 candidates were considered; then Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 12 also the point secured by the applicant was 22, whereas the person who secured 28.5 points was recommended for appointment.
20. After evaluating these materials on record, we are convinced that the allegations of the applicant that he was sidelined and persons who were better placed were preferred for appointment, that nepotism and favoritism were shown towards them and the respondents had exercised hostile discrimination against the applicant. The allegations are found to be baseless.
21. We have already mentioned that what is important is the worse financial condition one has fallen due to the sudden demise of the breadwinner of the family. The materials made available by the respondents clearly indicate that the committee appointed under the scheme had considered the claims of each candidate in most appropriate manner following the laid down criteria and parameters and no discrimination has been shown to the applicant. Therefore such an argument falls to the ground.
22. It is evident that the family of the applicant did not have any liability to be met after the demise of the father. He had left two children including the applicant who is the younger one. The elder is an electrician, who had no claim over the scheme. The applicant is a plumber. He had passed Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 13 12th standard and was studying for B.Com. Later, he discontinued studies and made the application. It is his admitted statement that he is a plumber by profession. Moreover, from the rejoinder, it is clear that he has since married and has a child in the relationship. As a matter of fact, a grown up male can think about marital life only if he is able to stand on his own foot. Therefore, it is clear that the penurious condition projected by the applicant is not realistic.
23. Moreover, the father of the applicant had passed away on 25.09.2011. Now, more than 14 years have passed since the demise of the father. The family could pull on, somehow or other, these years, which means they were not in that penurious condition as the applicant wanted to highlight. The appointment under the compassionate appointment is not another opportunity or another channel to seek employment. It can be given only to the most suitable person who deserves employment assistance under the scheme. By the long lapse of time, the applicant has proved himself not suitable to be considered for appointment. Here, the long delay happened in approaching this Tribunal cannot be ignored by us. The Original Application was filed only on 10th July 2024, long after 13 years of the demise of the father. It may be true that the respondents had not made any response to the representations. Still the long delay cannot be ignored. In the decision Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 14 reported in Government of India and another v. P. Venkatesh [(2019) 15 SCC 613], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that essence of claim lies in immediacy of need that the delay of 11 years after the death of the employee, which took away the very basis for providing compassionate appointment cannot be justified. Similarly, in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138], the Supreme Court has held as follow:
"6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a 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."
24. Such a decision has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others v. Nirval Singh [(2019) 6 SCC 774] where it is stated that the person is not entitled for compassionate appointment since there was delay of 7 years in approaching the Court.
25. That means, there are lapses on the part of the applicant. It is evident that he had made the first representation on 04.02.2012. If there was delay on the part of the respondents in not considering the same on time, he Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 15 should have approached the Tribunal at the earliest. There is no justification in moving the Tribunal after a lapse of 13 years. The delay cannot be ignored lightly.
26. Whatever it may be, we have already pointed out that the respondents had occasion to consider the claim of the applicant in an objective manner along with various other applications and he was found not suitable and thus his claim was not considered.
After considering all these aspects, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 30th day of December, 2025)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30'
O.A.No.383/2024 16
List of Annexures
Annexure-A1- True copy of the application for compassionate
appointment along with the forwarding letter of the applicant's mother dated 4.2.2012 Annexure-A2- True copy of the Communication F.No.4 (123)/2008-Estt. Dated 19.8.2017 from the 2nd respondent to the applicant's mother Annexure-A3- True copy of the letter of the applicant's mother to the 2nd respondent Annexure-A4- True copy of the representation dated nil submitted by the applicant before the 2nd respondent Anneuxre-A5- True copy of the application submitted on 19.4.2022 by the applicant before the 2nd respondent Annexure-A6- True copy of the letter F.No.2(2) Com.Appt./2020-Estt dated 18.9.2023 Annexure-R2 (a)- OM No. F.No.14014/02/2012-Estt.(D) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public grievance and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training.
Annexure R2(b):- True copy of the proceedings of the evaluation committee met under the Scheme for Kasargode Region dated 27.11.2012 Annexure R2(c):- True copy of the proceedings of The Evaluation Committee met under the scheme on 05.10.2013 Annexure R2(d):- True copy of the proceedings of the Committee dated 05.10.2013 Annexure R2(e): True copy of the proceedings of the Committee for the selection in the Respondents' office at Kasargode which was held on 05.08.2017 Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30' O.A.No.383/2024 17 Annexure R2(f): True copy of the score board published on 20.01.2018 Annexure R2(g): True copy of the proceedings of the Committee dated 20.01.2018 Annexure R2(h): True copy of the score board dated 09.06.2020 Annexure R2(i): True copy of the statement showing the consideration of the Applicant in OA Annexure R2(j): True copy of the proceedings dated 27.07.2021 Annexure R2(k): True copy of the proceedings of the Committee dated 28.12.2023 at the 2nd respondent's office at Kasargode Annexure R2(1): True copy of the proceedings dated 08.02.2024 ************* Deepa S 2025.12.31 09:10:07+05'30'