Smt. Aruna Dwivedi & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The father of Applicant No. 2, Late Shiv Swaroop Dwivedi, was working as Junior Assistant and unfortunately died in harness on 16.04.2021 due to a heart attack. After his death, Applicant No. 1, being the wife of the deceased employee, submitted an application dated 26.07.2021 through proper channel for appointment of her elder son, Applicant No. 2, on compassionate ground. Thereafter, Applicant No. 1 repeatedly approached the respondents on 29.10.2021, 02.03.2022, 06.07.2022 and 22.11.2022, along with the relevant medical reports and death certificate, requesting early consideration of the case for compassionate appointment. It was submitted that after the death of her husband, the family was facing financial hardship and the education and future of the children were adversely affected. The case of the applicants was subsequently considered along with other similar cases. However, the applicants were informed that Applicant No. 2 could not be selected due to the limited number of vacancies available for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 26.02.2024, called for fresh proposals for compassionate appointment from the concerned Benches in the prescribed format, along with details of the financial condition and other relevant particulars. Accordingly, Applicant No. 1 was again directed by the respondent No. 3 on 04.03.2024 to submit a fresh application in the prescribed form. The applicants duly complied with the requirement. Despite completion of all the formalities, no decision regarding compassionate appointment was communicated to the applicants. Finding no other remedy, Applicant No. 1 submitted an application under the RTI Act on 14.05.2025 seeking information regarding the status of her case. Thus, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate direction for consideration of the claim of Applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment, as the family of the deceased employee has been facing financial hardship since his untimely death in harness.

Per contra, the respondents have filed its counter affidavit stating therein that Late Shri S.S. Dwivedi, father of Applicant No. 2, was working as Junior Assistant in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench and died in harness on 16.04.2021 due to a heart attack. Applicant No. 1 is his wife and Applicant No. 2 is his son. After his death, Applicant No. 1 submitted several representations dated 26.07.2021, 29.10.2021, 02.03.2022 and 06.07.2022 seeking compassionate appointment for Applicant No. 2. The said representations were forwarded to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, New Delhi for necessary action. The respondents have stated that the case of Applicant No. 2 was considered along with other cases for appointment against 5% vacancies under the direct recruitment quota for Group ‘C’ posts. However, his name was not included among the selected candidates due to the limited number of vacancies. Subsequently, in compliance with the letter dated 26.02.2024 issued by the Principal Bench, Applicant No. 1 was asked to submit a fresh application in the prescribed format. The required forms and documents were thereafter forwarded by the Allahabad Bench to the Principal Bench on 15.04.2024 for consideration of the case afresh. The respondents further stated that the Committee constituted for considering compassionate appointment was held on 26.07.2024. A total of 32 applications from different Benches of the Tribunal were considered in accordance with the CAT policy dated 23.08.2023 and the relevant Government guidelines. At that time, 126 vacancies under the direct recruitment quota for Group ‘C’ posts were assessed. The Committee recommended six candidates who had secured higher points in the 100-point assessment system. The dependent family members of Late Shri S.S. Dwivedi secured only 45 points, whereas the candidates recommended for appointment had secured higher points. Therefore, Applicant No. 2 could not be recommended for compassionate appointment. On these grounds, the respondents have submitted that the case of the applicants was duly considered in accordance with the applicable policy and guidelines, and no illegality or arbitrariness has been committed by the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed that the Original Application be dismissed.

No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant.

I have heard Sri Dharmendra Tiwari as well as Shri P.K Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that father of Applicant No. 2 died in harness on 16.04.2021, leaving behind his wife and children. The family was facing financial hardship after his death. Applicant No. 1 made repeated representations for compassionate appointment of Applicant No. 2, but the case could not be finalized. It was further submitted that the case of Applicant No. 2 was considered earlier, but he could not be selected due to the limited number of vacancies. Thereafter, his case was again submitted in the prescribed format pursuant to the letter dated 26.02.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that the claim of the applicants is still pending and, therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of Applicant No. 2 in the next meeting of the Circle Relaxation Committee in accordance with the applicable rules and policy.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of Applicant No. 2 has already been considered along with other eligible cases for compassionate appointment. The applicants secured 45 points under the prescribed 100-point assessment system and, therefore, their case was not recommended as other candidates secured higher points and were recommended against the available vacancies. It was further submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and guidelines and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action taken by them. Thus he submitted that the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the father of Applicant No. 2 died in harness on 16.04.2021. It is also not in dispute that the claim of Applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment was considered by the competent Committee and he could not be recommended as he secured 45 points and other candidates secured higher points.

It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and the claim has to be considered in accordance with the applicable scheme and the relative financial condition of the families of deceased employees. At the same time, the case of an eligible dependent is required to be considered by the competent Committee in accordance with the policy applicable on the date of such consideration.

In the present case, the applicants have been pursuing their claim since 2021. Their case was again processed pursuant to the letter dated 26.02.2024 and the required documents were forwarded to the Principal Bench. In these circumstances, I am of the view that, in the interest of justice, the case of Applicant No. 2 deserves to be placed before the competent Committee for consideration in its next meeting. However, I make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of Applicant No. 2. His case shall be considered strictly in accordance with the applicable policy, the rules and the relative merit of the eligible candidates.

Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of Applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment in the next meeting of the Circle Relaxation Committee/Departmental Screening Committee, strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules, Government instructions and departmental guidelines. While reconsidering the case, the respondents shall prepare and place on record a detailed merit-point chart/evaluation sheet showing the marks awarded to Applicant No. 2 under each prescribed parameter, including family income, terminal benefits, number of dependents, liabilities, movable and immovable assets, educational qualification, remaining service of the deceased employee and such other relevant factors as prescribed under the applicable evaluation scheme. If, on such fresh evaluation, Applicant No. 2 falls within the zone of consideration on the basis of the merit-point assessment and availability of vacancies, his case shall be considered for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules, Government instructions and departmental guidelines. The decision taken by the Committee shall be communicated to the applicants forthwith. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of Applicant No. 2. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Misc. Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.