AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
This Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
(i)Directing the respondents to consider and provide the compassionate appointment to the applicant No.2.
(ii)Directing the respondents to consider and decide the application of the applicant No.1 dated 11.01.2023 submitted for providing the compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant No.2 within stipulated period of time.
(iii)To grant such any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.
(iv)Award the cost of the application in favour of the applicants”.
Brief facts of the case are that the husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicant No.2, namely, Late Jageshwar, was working in the respondents’ department and died in harness on 22.04.2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soon after his death, applicant No.1 submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment for her son, Shri Amit Kumar. The respondents considered the application and issued an offer of appointment to Shri Amit Kumar. He joined service on 25.01.2022 as Technician Grade-III. However, after a short period, he proceeded on leave from 01.03.2022 to 21.08.2022. After completing his studies, he again reported for duty and was sent for training on 22.08.2022. The Training Institute returned him to the department on 21.09.2022 with a request to post him against another suitable post, stating that his performance during training was not satisfactory and he was not following the instructions of the instructor. Thereafter, he did not report to the department. It further appears from the record that he subsequently submitted a representation seeking appointment against a post suitable to his educational qualification. Thereafter, applicant No.1 submitted another application seeking compassionate appointment for her daughter, applicant No.2, in place of her son. Since the respondents did not take any decision on the said application, the present Original Application has been filed.
Per contra, the respondents have filed a Counter Affidavit stating that, after the death of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment was considered and an offer of appointment was issued to his son, Shri Amit Kumar, who joined the service. It is stated that after joining the service, he proceeded on leave and, on his return, was sent for training. He was thereafter returned by the Training Institute for posting against a suitable post. The respondents have further stated that since compassionate appointment had already been offered to the son of the deceased employee and he had joined the service, a second compassionate appointment to the daughter of the deceased employee cannot be granted on the same cause of action. It has also been stated that although disciplinary proceedings were proposed against the son of applicant No.1, no final action has been taken so far and his appointment/service has not been cancelled or terminated.
The applicants filed a Rejoinder Affidavit denying the averments made in the Counter Affidavit and reiterating the facts stated in the Original Application. No new fact has been brought on record.
I have heard Shri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, and Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no bar for granting compassionate appointment to applicant No.2 after cancellation or termination of the appointment of the son of applicant No.1. It was further submitted that the applicants had submitted a detailed representation, which is still pending consideration. Learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider and provide compassionate appointment to applicant No.2. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in Prajaj C. v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 23.02.2012 in O.A. No.1187 of 2010.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that an offer of compassionate appointment had already been issued to the son of the deceased employee and he had joined the service. Therefore, a second compassionate appointment to another family member on the same cause of action cannot be granted. It was further submitted that the son of the deceased employee is still in service and his service has not been terminated. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the OA.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
Admittedly, applicant No.1’s husband, Late Jageshwar, was working in the respondents’ department and died in harness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Immediately thereafter, applicant No.1 submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment for her son. The respondents considered the application and issued an offer of appointment to him. Pursuant to the said offer, he joined service on 25.01.2022 as Technician Grade-III.
It is further evident from the record that after joining service, he proceeded on leave from 01.03.2022 to 21.08.2022. Thereafter, he returned and was sent for training. The Training Institute returned him to the department with a request to post him against a suitable post, observing that his performance and conduct during training were not satisfactory. Though he thereafter did not report to the department, he submitted a representation seeking a suitable post according to his educational qualification. During this period, applicant No.1 submitted another application seeking compassionate appointment for her daughter. Thus, the question which arises for consideration is whether a second compassionate appointment can be claimed for another family member on the same cause of action when the first appointment had already been offered, accepted and acted upon by the son of the deceased employee and his service has not been terminated.
Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision in Prajaj C. (supra). However, the said decision is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the issue before the Tribunal was with regard to the benefit of reduction of the period of training. The facts and issue involved in that case are entirely different from those of the present case. Therefore, the said decision does not assist the applicants.
The issue involved in the present case came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. etc., Civil Appeal Nos.12640-12643 of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8776-8779 of 2023, decided on 12.12.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“21.From the aforesaid facts, it is established that the respondents/M. Jayabal & S. Veeramani had applied for a particular post and their prayer was accepted, as a result of which they were offered appointment on the post for which they had applied. After they had joined on the post offered to them on compassionate basis, consideration of their prayer for the same stood consummated. The families of both the respondents were no more in financial distress. The right once exercised could not be permitted to be exercised again and again by making it an endless exercise. An applicant for the post on compassionate basis may be eligible for any higher post but that does not mean he has right to be appointed on that post. This depends on the rules and the policy applicable and also the number of vacancies to be offered in that category. In fact, this is not an additional source of recruitment, rather an exception to the general rule of providing equal opportunities to all for recruitment in government jobs. This Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anusree K.B.13 has held that for consideration of an application for appointment on compassionate basis, financial status of the family is also a relevant factor. It is not a matter of selection or choice of an applicant for such a post, rather for the employer to consider various factors. The basic idea is to provide succour to the family to enable them to come out of immediate financial crisis. Delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment has also been held to be fatal for the exercise of such a right.
22.If the facts of the case in hand are considered, in our view, belated applications made by the respondents seeking appointment on a higher post, after they had already been appointed on a lower post, was rightly rejected by the competent authority. The view expressed by learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court directing their appointment on a higher post w.e.f the date of judgement was certainly erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law laid down by this Court on the subject”.
From the above legal position, it is clear that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee. It is not a regular mode of recruitment and does not confer any vested right upon a family member. Once the claim for compassionate appointment has been accepted and one family member has been appointed and has joined service, the same cause of action cannot ordinarily be used for claiming another compassionate appointment for a different family member.
In the present case, the son of the deceased employee was offered compassionate appointment and he joined service on 25.01.2022. His service has neither been cancelled nor terminated. Therefore, the claim of applicant No.2 for compassionate appointment, on the basis of the same cause of action, cannot be accepted.
In view of the above discussion and the settled legal position, no direction can be issued to the respondents to provide a second compassionate appointment to applicant No.2. The Original Application, therefore, lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.