Shekher Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors

This writ petition seeks to challenge judgment dated 20.09.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘the

Tribunal’) whereby Original Application seeking compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Indisputably, father of the petitioner, Shri Ravindra Singh Yadav died in harness while serving the Railways on 12.09.1989 and at that time, the

petitioner was only 1½ years old. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the judgment of the Tribunal has submitted that the Tribunal was

unduly swayed away by the fact that the petitioner filed application belatedly in 2014, after attaining the age of majority. Referring to the circular of

the Railways dated 31.05.2011, it is argued that application seeking compassionate appointment can be filed even 25 years after the death of the

government servant. It is contended that the respondents have rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that initially step brother of the

petitioner, who was born to first wife of his father, Smt. Vedvati, applied for compassionate appointment but on enquiry, Certificate of VII Class

submitted by him was found to be forged. It is argued that this cannot be a reason for rejection of application of the petitioner.

Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal indicates that not only elder brother of the petitioner, who according to him is his step

brother, had already applied for compassionate appointment and his case was rejected because when Certificate of VIII Class, purported to have

been issued by the Head Master of the Government Upper Primary School, Talwara, Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh Bas, Alwar was sent for

verification, the Head Master of that school informed that no such student ever studied in that school and Transfer Certificate was not issued by that

school. Apart from that, we find that father of the petitioner died on 12.09.1989 and period of more than 30 years has gone by since then, therefore,

case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. The very purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to provide

succor to the family whose sole bread earner has died leaving the family in financial distress and penury. Such appointment is to be provided to the

eligible and deserving persons immediately after the death of government servant, who died in harness. Circular dated 31.05.2011, on which reliance

has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced, as no such appointment can be claimed after 25 years of the death of

the government servant. It is trite that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule and the rule is that appointment can be procured only

after competing with all other eligible candidates. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

In view of above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Stay Application No. 17445/2018 also stands dismissed.