Shruti Rani vs The Union Of India & Ors.

The father of the applicant, Late Ashwini Kumar Tiwari was posted as an Assistant Audit Officer (Ad Hoc) in the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Ranchi, Jharkhand, who died on 03/11/2022 in harness. The applicant has enclosed the death certificate at Annexure-A/1 of the OA.

After the demise of the applicant's father, the settlement dues and family pension have been processed in favour of the applicant's mother and she is getting pension of Rs.15,150/-per month and an additional pension of Rs. 12,500/- per month as the deceased employee was an ex-serviceman.

The brother of the applicant, namely, Saurabh Kishore Tiwari works in a private company in Bengaluru and has given his no objection if the applicant is given compassionate appointment, as he has severed all his ties with the family.

It is further submitted by the applicant that she has completed her graduation and possesses the requisite qualification for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds. The father of the applicant maintained his parents, one spouse, one son and one daughter and the applicant in the present case is the youngest of them all. That at present all the dependents of Late Ashiwini Kumar Tiwari are unemployed and are facing a lot of hardship in fulfilling their basic needs, though the son of the deceased is employed in a private company in Bangalore he has severed all ties with his family and the family of the deceased is living in penury and extreme hardship.

The applicant has averred that the applicant after fulfilling the requisite requirements and after getting the no objection certificate from his sibling as well as her mother has represented before the respondent authority for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground on 27/09/2023 (Annexure-A/2).

A competent Departmental Screening Committee held its meeting on 07.09.2023 (Annexure-A/3) and found that the case of the applicant for Compassionate Appointment was unfit for appointment on Compassionate Ground. They evaluated on different parameters for short listing applications for appointment on compassionate ground and found that the marks obtained by the applicant is 70/165.

That from perusal of the evaluation of marks it is very lucid that the marks allotment is faulty to the extent that 10 marks have been allotted in the particulars of immovable property as because committee found that a 3BHK flat in Central Administrative Tribunal^{Ranchi is acquired by the family which will be costing} between ₹30-40 lakhs. It is contended that the Flat has been purchased by taking loan and the substantial amount has to be returned to the bank as a loan. Further it is well settled law that unless the last instalment is paid and NOC is granted by the Loanee Bank it is the property of the Bank so, the marks allotted under this particular ought to have been 30 instead of 10.

The applicant has further submitted that in the particular Job, zero marks have been allotted because the elder brother is employed in a private firm. As stated above the elder brother has severed relationship with the family and also not looking after his Grand Parents, his mother and the Applicant, so it can easily be said that there is no Job in the family hence 15 marks ought to have been allotted instead of Zero. As such applicants ought to have been allotted 105 instead of 70 marks .

Vide letter dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure-A/4) respondents have intimated the decision taken by the Departmental Screening Committee who held its meeting on 07.09.2023 rejecting the claim of the applicant.

The applicant has mentioned that his mother has also taken loan to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his relatives and friends for the treatment of severe ailment of ENT.

She has referred to a similar case in which the Departmental Screening Committee has given appointment or at least recommended for appointment on Compassionate Ground even though he obtained 75 marks out of total 180 marks and another candidate who has scored 110 marks out of 180 marks have also been recommended for appointment though the case belongs to State of Himachal Pradesh. The applicant has annexed the minutes of the meeting dated 15.09.2022 along with its enclosures as at Annexure- A/5.

Referring to clause 11 of the Government of India OM dated 02.08.2022 (Annexure-A/6) with regard to scheme of Compassionate Appointment she has submitted that Compassionate Appointment to a dependent member of the deceased can be granted though there is an earning member in the family.

When the representation of the mother of the applicant as at Annexure-A/7 has not been considered by the respondents the instant OA has been preferred.

The applicant has filed the present application for quashing and setting aside the Departmental Screening Committee report dated 07.09.2023 whereby the claim of the applicant for her appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of her father died in harness while holding the post of AAO (Ad-hoc) under the respondents.

It is submitted that Late Ashwini Kumar Tiwari died in harness on 03-11-2022 leaving behind his parents, his wife, one son and one daughter. He was an Ex-Serviceman and joined in the office of the respondents as Auditor and after passing the SAS Examination appointed as AAO (Ad-hoc).

It is further submitted that the wife of the deceased requested for appointment of her daughter, namely, Ms. Shruti Rani (the applicant) for Compassionate Appointment. The applicant was sent the information about the number of vacancies available for compassionate appointment and the marks awarded as per point-based merit system. The case was placed before the committee initially on 28.07.2023, in which the committee directed to submit certain documentary proof. The matter was again placed before the committee on 07.09.2023 (Annexure-A/3 of OA) and the committee decided not to recommend the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. The recommendation was subsequently approved by the Accountant General on 15.09.2023.

It is further averred by the respondents that the terminal benefits received by the family was also one of the criteria for consideration in compassionate appointment, which are as follows:

DCRG -Rs. 8,36,280/-

ii) Group Insurance: Rs. 65,050/-

iii) Leave Encashment: Rs. 1,81,196/-

iv) GPF/NPS Rs. 6,70,409/-

Normal Pension @Rs. 15,150/- per month.

vi) FP being wife of Ex-servicemen @ Rs. 12,500/- pm.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{Besides the above, the family has a 3-BHK flat in} Ranchi town. Further the only son of the deceased employee is currently working in Multi National Company, Walmart whereas as per the documents provided by the family they have a liability to pay an EMI of Rs. 18,500/- toward home loan.

All the above facts/materials were placed before the Departmental Screening Committee for consideration and the committee evaluated the case of the applicant on the different parameters as prescribed by the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India vide Circular No. 14 circulated vide letter No. 52 dated 20-04-2022 (Annexure-A) where under the applicant scored 70 out of 165.

The committee, on the basis of above details, instructions contained in the Circulars and guidelines issued by DoPT vide OM dated 02-08-2022 (Annexure-A/6 of OA), has unanimously decided not to extend appointment on compassionate ground to the applicant. The committee was of the view that the family has sufficient means to survive and the condition of extending compassionate appointment i.e., leaving the family in penury condition and without any means of livelihood by the deceased government servant is not satisfied. The finding of the committee is based on objective consideration and the same has been approved by the competent authority.

Accordingly, the applicant was informed vide this office letter dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure-A/4 of OA) that Departmental Screening Committee as per existing circulars/ instructions etc. relating to appointment on compassionate ground has not recommended to extend appointment on compassionate ground after the minutes were approved by the Competent Authority.

The respondents have further averred that the amount mentioned Rs.15150/-(from this office)+ Rs. 12500/- (for the service in Indian Air Force) is the family pension. Presently the family is receiving enhanced family pension of Rs. 25,250/-plus Dearness Relief (at present 50%) which will be reduced to Rs. 15150/-(plus Dearness Relief) only after completion of ten years from the death of employee i.e. 04/11/2032. Further, the information that the brother of the applicant is working in Bengaluru, the issue of liabilities i.e. the amount taken as loan for purchase of the house and marriage of son and daughter was also placed and considered by the Departmental Screening Committee, while deciding the case of Compassionate Appointment of the candidate.

The respondents have further averred that the marks allotted against different parameters was also sent to the applicant vide the office letter dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure-B) and no communication was received in this regard from the candidate. All the details available in the office of the respondents was placed before the Departmental Screening Committee for considering appointment on Compassionate Ground of the applicant. The Departmental Screening Committee observed that the family has means to survive and the condition of extending compassionate appointment i.e. leaving the family in penurious condition and without any means of livelihood by the deceased Government Servant is not satisfied in this case. The committee unanimously decided not to recommend the candidate (applicant) for appointment on compassionate ground.

It is further submitted that the reply to the representation of her mother as at Annexure-A/7 has been sent vide letter dated 12-07-2024 (Annexure-C ).

It is further averred by the respondents that the appointments on compassionate grounds are to be considered under the provisions of the scheme formulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training as amended from time to time. The scheme necessitates a balance and objective assessment of financial condition of family of the deceased taking into account its assets and liabilities including the terminal benefits (excluding GPF) received on account of death of the employee and all other relevant factors.

It is settled law that the applicant has no vested right for appointment on compassionate ground but has only a right for consideration and the respondents have considered the case in its entirety as per the Scheme formulated by the Government of India.

The respondents have submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases has also held that the retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee have to be considered before offering appointment on compassionate ground. It was also held by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal^{Supreme Court in Union Bank of India & Ors Vs. M T} Lateesh [(2006) 7 SCC 350] case that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations are better equipped to decide the case on facts of the case and their objective findings arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not disturbed.

Therefore, offering compassionate appointment without consideration of financial resources available to the dependants and financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of the death simply because the claimant happened to be dependant of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and hence bad and illegal. Considering the matter in the light of these law and judicial pronouncement the respondents have submitted that this application is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

In view of the pleadings, the following questions arise for consideration:

Whether the applicant has a vested or enforceable right to appointment on compassionate grounds merely because her father died in harness?

Whether the decision-making process adopted by the respondents was contrary to the applicable scheme or otherwise arbitrary, irrational or based upon irrelevant considerations?

Whether the alleged errors in allocation of marks concerning the residential flat and the employment of the applicant's brother warrant interference by this Tribunal?

Whether the applicant has established discrimination or unequal treatment on the basis of the case relied upon by her?

At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the settled legal character of compassionate appointment. Public employment is ordinarily required to conform to the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Compassionate appointment is an exception carved out for the limited purpose of providing immediate succour to a family which has been rendered financially distressed by the death of its breadwinner. It cannot be treated as another channel of recruitment or as a hereditary right to public employment.

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner and not to confer employment upon a dependant merely because of his or her relationship with the deceased employee.

The principle has subsequently been reiterated in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere death in harness does not create an entitlement to compassionate employment and that the competent authority must examine the financial condition of the family. The Court also emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a vested right.

Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family. The Supreme Court has reiterated that indigence of the dependants is the first condition bringing a claim within the compassionate appointment scheme and that compassionate appointment cannot become a reservation in favour of the descendants of an employee who died in service.

In the present case, the Screening Committee had before it amongst other information, the material relating to the family's regular and recurring income in the form of double family pensions namely one from the previous employment in defence service and the present one from the last employer - the A.G. office, the terminal benefits, residential property, housing loan liability and the existing employment of the deceased employee's son. The respondents have specifically pleaded that all these factors Central Administrative Tribunal^{were placed before the Screening Committee and considered} while assessing the applicant's claim. The applicant has not demonstrated that any of these material particulars were wrong.

The applicant contends that the family is nevertheless undergoing financial hardship on account of loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- loan taken by her mother for medical treatment. Financial hardship, however, cannot be examined in isolation by looking at one liability or one item of expenditure. The scheme requires an overall assessment of the family's financial condition, taking into account its assets, liabilities, income and other relevant circumstances. The mere existence of liabilities does not necessarily establish that the family has been reduced to the condition of financial destitution contemplated by the scheme. The EMI liability of Rs.18,500/- was also before the Committee. Thus, the applicant's contention that the existence of the housing loan was altogether ignored cannot be accepted on the material presently before the Tribunal.

The applicant’s challenge to the award of marks under the head relating to immovable property on the ground that the flat was purchased with the aid of a housing loan is not accepted as the applicant has not demonstrated from the applicable circular that the mere existence of an outstanding housing loan that too, much below the present value of that flat, automatically requires the Committee to disregard the residential property for purposes of assessment or to allot the precise number of marks claimed by her.

Secondly, the proposition advanced by the applicant Central Administrative Tribunal^{that until the last instalment is paid the flat is legally the} property of the lending bank, and therefore the family cannot be treated as owning the property, is too broadly stated. The precise legal incidents of a housing loan, mortgage/security interest and title depend upon the documents governing the transaction. An outstanding loan does not, by itself, establish that the borrower has no proprietary interest whatsoever in the residential property.

The applicant next challenges the award of zero marks on account of her brother being employed in a private company. She submits that the brother has severed his relationship with the family and has given no objection to her appointment. There is no evidence to prove that the earning brother has severed all ties with the family.

The Screening Committee was entitled, under the applicable scheme, to take into account the existence of an earning member in the family while assessing the family's financial condition. Moreover, the point-based scheme has to be applied according to its terms, and not on the basis of an individual family's understanding of intra-family relationships.

The applicant has placed reliance upon the Government of India O.M. dated 02.08.2022, particularly the provision relied upon by her concerning cases where there is an earning member in the family.

I have examined this submission. The existence of an earning member does not appear to have been treated by the respondents as an absolute statutory bar to consideration of Central Administrative Tribunal^{the applicant's claim. It is evident that the fact of the brother's} employment was considered along with the other financial circumstances of the family. Therefore, the material placed before this Tribunal does not establish that the respondents applied the O.M. as an absolute prohibition merely because the applicant's brother was employed.

The applicant has relied upon the proceedings/minutes of a Screening Committee dated 15.09.2022 concerning other candidates and submits that candidates obtaining 75 marks and 110 marks out of 180 were recommended for appointment. The submission cannot be accepted as establishing discrimination. Compassionate appointment is scheme-specific. A candidate cannot claim appointment merely by comparing the numerical marks obtained by another candidate unless it is first demonstrated that the two cases were governed by the same scheme, the same applicable parameters, the same vacancy position, the same financial criteria, and materially identical facts. The respondents have maintained that the case relied upon by the applicant arose under a different administrative jurisdiction and that the marks are an aid to objective assessment and a candidate securing a particular numerical threshold which also varies from one cycle to another, must necessarily be appointed. In fact, the case of the widow who was considered had no such financial means as the applicant and she also had two minor children to support.

It is noted that the Screening Committee was constituted for the specific purpose of evaluating claims for compassionate appointment. The record shows that the Central Administrative Tribunal^{Committee considered the applicant's claim objectively,} called for further material, assessed the case under the prescribed parameters, recorded its conclusion and the decision was thereafter approved by the competent authority.

I do not find that the Committee proceeded on a criterion alien to the scheme. Nor has the applicant established that a material document was deliberately ignored, that the decision was actuated by an extraneous consideration, or that the conclusion is so irrational that no reasonable Screening Committee applying the scheme could have arrived at it. The Tribunal cannot convert itself into a substitute Screening Committee and re-score the applicant's claim merely because the applicant disputes individual components of the assessment.

Upon an overall consideration of the record, I find that the applicant's case was rejected on proper assessment of all the relevant parameters as per the policy governing the compassionate appointment.

The applicant has not demonstrated that the Screening Committee was required, under the applicable scheme, to ignore the residential property because it was subject to a housing loan, or that it was legally bound to award the precise additional marks claimed by her. Nor has she established that the existence of an earning son had to be completely excluded from the assessment merely because of her claim that the earning brother has severed all ties with the family and that too, when it has remained unsubstantiated and unsupported by any documentary proof put before this Central Administrative Tribunal^Tribunal.

This Tribunal thus holds that the conclusion of the Screening Committee that the family did not satisfy the financial condition for compassionate appointment is not perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to the governing scheme.

The applicant was eligible to seek consideration, and her case was in fact considered by the competent Screening Committee. The right to consideration has thus been satisfied. No vested right to appointment has accrued in the facts and circumstances discussed above.

This Tribunal accordingly finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the Departmental Screening Committee's decision dated 07.09.2023 or the consequential communication dated 10.10.2023.