Ajay Kumar Verma vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)

The father of the applicant expired on 28.10.2004. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant submitted an application on 29.11.2004 (Annexure A-4) for grant of compassionate appointment for her elder son, Shri Mahendra Kumar and his case was considered on as many as three times, however, his candidature was not recommended. Subsequently, the present applicant submitted an application on 21.06.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and on not being successful, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him appointment on compassionate grounds.

On the other hand, the respondents, in their reply, have stated that they had considered and placed the case of the applicant before the CAC and that his case was considered for five vacancy years, but he was not found to be meritorious enough for recommendation. In support of their contention, the respondents have furnished the details in their reply, which are reproduced below :

They have further stated that to fill up the five vacancies earmarked for 2005, 2006 and 2007, 40 applications received up to 31.12.2017 were assessed in accordance with the standard guidelines dated 04.06.2015 for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the case of the applicant was placed for consideration against the vacancy year 2005, 2006 and 2007 as the father of the applicant expired on 28.10.2004. The CAC which met on 11^th & 12^th January, 2018 and 18^th & 19^th January, 2018 did not recommend his case for appointment on compassionate ground as his name was not in the merit.

Respondents have stated that the case of the applicant was again placed before the Review CAC, which met finally on 01.03.2019 for consideration but the Review CAC did not recommend his case against the vacancy year 2008 and 2009 as well for appointment on compassionate ground, as his name did not appear in the merit. Further, it has been submitted that the vacancies of the years 2008 and 2009 were utilized to comply with the order / judgment dated 30.11.2017 of this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.807/2013 titled as Parmeshwer Meena and others Vs. Union of India and others decided on 30.11.2017.

Heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, documents and materials placed on record.

The father of the applicant expired way back in October, 2004 and the case of the applicant had been considered by the respondents along with other applicants against the vacancies earmarked for five vacancy years, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

So, it is clear from above that the respondents kept on considering the case of the applicant till as late as 01.03.2019, despite the fact that the father of the applicant had expired way back on 28.10.2004. The respondents, rather, did so despite of the judgment dated 04.05.1994 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others [JT 1994 (3) SC 525], wherein, it is clearly mentioned that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.

The department, by considering the cases for grant of compassionate appointment endlessly, much beyond the reasonable period of five years is, in fact, making a mockery of the very purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment i.e. helping the family of the deceased employee to cope up with the financial hardships immediately following the death of the breadwinner.

In the present case, the father of the applicant expired on 28.10.2004. Immediately thereafter, the mother of the applicant submitted an application on 29.11.2004 (Annexure A-4) seeking compassionate appointment for her elder son, Shri Mahendra Kumar. His case was considered by the respondents on three occasions; however, his candidature was not recommended by CAC. Subsequently, the present applicant himself submitted an application on 21.06.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Thus, his claim for compassionate appointment was initially made immediately after the death of the breadwinner, and was thereafter pursued by the family through the application submitted by the present applicant. The respondents, instead of taking a final decision within a reasonable period, continued to consider the claim against successive vacancy years and, in the case of the present applicant, considered his case even up to 01.03.2019. Consequently, the prolonged consideration of the claim for about 14 years and 4 months from the date of death of the employee was unwarranted and diluted the very object of providing appointment on compassionate grounds.

It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment to public posts and is intended to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased employee in order to tide over the financial crisis arising on account of the sudden demise of the breadwinner. It is not intended to be a source of employment or to be claimed as a matter of right after a considerable lapse of time.

In the present case, the repeated consideration of the applicant’s case against different vacancy years, even after the lapse of several years from the date of death of his father, cannot be said to advance the very object for which compassionate appointment is provided. Rather, such repeated consideration has resulted in keeping the claim of the applicant alive for an unduly long period, despite the fact that his case was not found fit on merits in any of the vacancy years.

It is also significant that the respondents themselves have stated that the applicant’s case was considered against the vacancy years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 and that he was not recommended as his name did not appear in the merit. Therefore, there was no justification for continuing to consider his case endlessly against subsequent vacancy years, particularly when the very basis for compassionate appointment, namely, the immediate financial hardship caused by the death of the breadwinner, had ceased to exist with the passage of such a long period.

In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the claim for compassionate appointment, which was initially raised immediately after the death of the applicant’s father on 28.10.2004, kept on being considered for an unduly long period. The application submitted by the applicant’s mother on 29.11.2004 was followed by consideration of the candidature of her elder son, Shri Mahendra Kumar, on three occasions, and thereafter by the application submitted by the present applicant on 21.06.2017. The respondents ultimately continued to consider the applicant’s case up to 01.03.2019, i.e. for about 14 years and 4 months from the date of death of the deceased employee. Such repeated and prolonged consideration, despite the applicant not being found fit in merit against the vacancy years for which his case was considered, is contrary to the very object and purpose of compassionate appointment. The applicant, therefore, cannot claim compassionate appointment as a vested right merely because his case was considered by the respondents against successive vacancy years.

The present case does not warrant interference, the Original Application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.