Central Administrative Tribunal

Ashwani Kumar vs. General Manager N C Rly

MANU/CA/0822/2022

17.11.2022

Service

Compassionate appointment is not a Rule and cannot be sought as a matter of right

In facts of present matter, Applicant was minor at the time of death of his mother. Respondents have paid the retiral dues and also granted family pension w.e.f. 12.12.2011 in favour of the applicant, as per registered adoption deed. He is receiving pension @ 14,087 per month from the respondents. Applicant moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment, when he attained majority but the respondent No. 3 has rejected the case of the applicant for granting compassionate appointment.

As per dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of deceased employee must be taken into consideration. The object to grant compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents of deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation.

It is also settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a Rule and cannot be sought, as a matter of right. The compassionate appointment is a concession and exception to public appointment provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, to seek a concession of compassionate appointment, claimant must prove his financial condition and must prove that in the event of non grant of compassionate appointment, claimant would face financial crisis.

In the case of State of J&K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, it is observed that "Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need for compassionate appointment." In the case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar, the Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated that "Compassionate Appointment is not a source of recruitment. It is an exception to general rule, that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible person to participate in the selection process."

The Hon'ble Apex Court once again in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Shashank Goswami and another has been pleased to observe that "Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same is based on the premises that the applicant was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly such a claim cannot be upheld on the touch stone of Article 14 or 16 of Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service."

In the instant case, the deceased employee Devi had adopted the applicant from her daughter Smt. Shanti Devi and son-in-law just before one month and twenty one days before her death. She had not given information about the adoption to the department during her life time. Substantial period (More than 10 years) is over after the death of the deceased. It appears that respondents have rightly observed that, there is no financial crises to the family. Grant of payment of family pension to the applicant will not be sufficient to give him compassionate appointment. Application dismissed.

Tags : Compassionate appointment Eligibility Right

Share :