Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Vinay Kumar vs Scientific And Industrial Research on 30 January, 2026
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00740 of 2024 Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00740 of 2024
Dated, this 30th day of January, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Vinay Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Vinod Kumar, R/o
Village - Kanni Khera, Post and Tehsil - Sarojini Nagar, Police Station -
Banthara, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Neeraj Kumar Rai
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Science and Technology, New Delhi.
2. Director General, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research,
Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. Joint Director (Administration), Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research, Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
4. Director, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, National
Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, P.B. No. 436
Lucknow-226001 (India).
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
Shri Harsh Tripathi holding brief for Shri
Dharmendra Kumar Dixit
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to compassionate appointment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"(i) Issue order or direction hereby setting-aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the compassionate appointment committee which is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the Original Application.
(ii) Issue order to the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment under Dying-in Harness Rules within a time bound period on suitable post as per his qualification.
(iii) Any other order or directions, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.Page 1 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00740 of 2024 Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.
(iv) Award the cost of the Original Application."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant's father died in harness on 19.03.1995 while working on the post of Helper Grade-I under the respondents leaving behind his wife and two sons, including the applicant who was minor at that point of time. The applicant's mother made an application to the respondents on 07.09.1995 for appointment of the brother of applicant's father on compassionate grounds which was rejected based on the meetings of the Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 25.05.2000 and 17.11.2000 on the ground that deceased employee's brother was not covered in the definition of family for the purpose of compassionate appointment. The applicant's mother made another application on 22.09.2005 for appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground which was rejected on 27.01.2006. Thereafter, the applicant's mother submitted application dated 06.05.2022 which was rejected on 23.08.2024 based on the meeting of the Compassionate Appointment Committee held on 30.07.2024. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant's contention is that her mother was never informed about the rejection of case of compassionate appointment of her brother-in-law. In regard to rejection of his compassionate appointment by the respondents, the applicant contends that such rejection is unsustainable for having been made on technical ground without due application of mind. It is further averred that the applicant has been discriminated against in that the dependents of employees who died much after his father have been recommended for appointment while his case has been rejected. Page 2 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00740 of 2024 Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.
4. Per contra, the respondents contend that their decision is based on the extant instructions on compassionate appointments issued by the Department of Personnel & Training and the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research and that it is in conformity with the ratio in Local Administration Department vs M Selvanayagam (Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006) 2011 (13) SCC 42 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.04.2011.
5. Heard both the parties.
6.1 The object of the scheme for compassionate appointment under Central Government is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency [O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 09.10.1998 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training]. 6.2 The sense of urgency required in settling cases of compassionate appointments both on the part of the seeker and the provider of such dispensation has been highlighted in a catena of judgments. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana 1994 SCC (4) 138, Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"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."
(emphasis supplied) Page 3 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00740 of 2024 Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 03.03.2023 in The State of West Bengal vs Debabrata Tiwari & Ors Civil Appeal Nos. 8842 - 8855 of 2022, made the following observations:
"7.1.i...
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 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."
(emphasis supplied) In the case of M Sevanayagam (supra) cited by the respondents, Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed a similar opinion in the following terms:
"7.... It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that 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 bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind."
(emphasis supplied) It follows from the judgments quoted above that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be construed as a never ending entitlement to be invoked at any point of time. Rather, it is a scheme to provide succor to the family to help deal with the immediate crisis faced by the family of the deceased employee on his death in harness. Page 4 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00740 of 2024 Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. 6.3 The emergent need of the family is manifested in the diligence with which the family pursue the case for compassionate appointment with the authorities concerned and in seeking legal remedy, if required. Unexplained delay on part of the family to pursue the case for compassionate appointment can be fatal to their claim. The door for compassionate appointment cannot be kept open indefinitely if the family of the deceased employee display a lack of urgency in pursuing their case. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the following observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of their judgment dated 03.03.2023 in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) while discussing Malaya Nanda Sethy vs State of Orissa AIR 2022 SC 2836:
"11... As noted in the said case, the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the applications are processed by the concerned authorities but also in the conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and if needed before the Courts."
(emphasis supplied) 6.4 Coming to the case at hand, it is noted that the application was made for the applicant's appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2005. No representation or reminder is placed on record by the applicant to demonstrate that he was pursuing the case with the respondents. It was only in the year 2022 that the applicant approached the respondents again for his appointment on compassionate ground. This gap of 17 years shows the lack of urgency on the applicant's part and such inordinate delay in pursuing his case itself is fatal to his cause, in my opinion.
6.5 The applicant's contention of discriminatory treatment also holds no water as a perusal of the minutes of the Compassionate Appointment Committee meetings held on 31.05.2024, 25.06.2024 and 30.07.2024 reveals that other similarly situated old cases (e.g. late Page 5 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00740 of 2024 Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. Manohar Lal who died in 1993 and late Sundar Lal who died in 2014) were also rejected by the Committee.
7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed as devoid of merit. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A) vidya Vidya Ben Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Waghela Date: 2026.02.02 17:38:44 +05'30' Page 6 of 6