SMT SUNITA vs M/o Defence
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
Reserved on 03.09.2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad
th
This the 7 day of SEPTEMBER, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 391 of 2017
Smt. Sunita aged about 35 years Wife of late Arbind, R/o House No.
28, Hans Vihar Colony, Kakkar Nursing Homes, Bulandshahar,
District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh, Pin-203001.
……….. APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri N.P Singh
: Shri Neeraj Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence, New
Delhi.
2. Commandant, Central Ordinance Depot, Jabalpur, M.P. 482001.
3. Administrative Officer, Central Ordinance Depot, Jabalpur,
M.P. 482001.
.……… RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Sharad Kumar
ORDER
Heard Shri N.P. Singh , learned counsel for the applicant
and Shri Sharad Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking
following relief:
“ A. To quash the impugned order dated 22.04.2016
(Annexure No. 5 to the OA) and impugned order dated
30.12.2016 (Annexure No. 9 to the OA) passed by the
respondent no. 3 on behalf of the respondent no. 2.
1
ASHISH
KUMAR
B. A direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued
commanding the respondent no. 2 to reconsider the case
of applicant as per rules.
C. To issue any other writ order or direction as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit nad proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
D. To award cost to the applicant.
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the
applicant’s husband was selected and appointed as a Lower Division
Clerk under respondent No. 2. After rendering about seven years of
service, he met with an accident and died on the spot on 17.11.2010.
Following his death, the applicant obtained a legal heir certificate
from the office of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, and was
accordingly sanctioned family pension by the competent authority.
The applicant thereafter submitted an application dated 29.07.2013
seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in place of her
deceased husband. Her case was considered by the respondents on
different occasions; however, she was informed vide communications
dated 15.04.2014 and 26.02.2015 that she could not be selected due to
the large number of applications and insufficient merit points, though
her case was to be considered in the subsequent Annual Board of
Officers. The applicant contends that, in view of the Government of
India circular dated 30.04.2015, there was no prescribed time limit for
closing cases relating to compassionate appointment merely after
expiry of three years. However, vide order dated 22.04.2016, the
respondents rejected and closed her case on the ground that it had
already been considered three times and that she had failed to secure
the requisite merit for selection. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed
OA No. 846 of 2016, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order
dated 11.07.2016. However, upon service of the said order, the
respondents again rejected her claim vide communication dated
30.12.2016, relying upon the earlier speaking order dated 22.04.2016
and holding that her case had been finally decided due to lack of
merit. Hence, being aggrieved by the rejection of her claim for
compassionate appointment, the applicant has filed the instant OA.
2
ASHISH
KUMAR
4. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have submitted that
the applicant’s husband, who was working as a Lower Division Clerk
in COD, Jabalpur, died on 17.11.2010, whereafter the applicant was
granted family pension and terminal benefits. It is contended that the
applicant’s request for compassionate appointment was considered by
the Board of Officers at Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army),
New Delhi, on several occasions, but she could not be recommended
due to the limited vacancies available under the 5% quota and the
existence of more deserving candidates. According to the respondents,
the applicant secured 56 marks under the prescribed merit-point
system, whereas the last recommended candidates had secured higher
marks during the relevant considerations. The respondents further
submit that, pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 11.07.2016
passed in OA No. 846/2016, the applicant’s case was again considered
for the fourth time by the Board of Officers in September 2016;
however, she could not secure the requisite merit for appointment. It
is, therefore, contended that compassionate appointment is not a
matter of right but is intended only to provide immediate financial
assistance to a family facing sudden financial distress, and after due
consideration of the applicant’s financial condition and the applicable
guidelines, her claim was rightly rejected by the competent authority.
5. I have considered the rival submission and gone through the
entire records.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant’s husband, who was working as a Lower Division Clerk
under respondent No. 2, died in an accident on 17.11.2010 after
rendering about seven years of service, whereafter the applicant, being
his legally recognized heir, was granted family pension and submitted
an application dated 29.07.2013 seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds. Learned counsel submits that the applicant’s
case was considered on several occasions but was not selected on
account of the alleged limited vacancies and comparative merit, and
3
ASHISH
KUMAR
was ultimately rejected and closed vide order dated 22.04.2016 on the
ground that her case had already been considered three times. It is
further submitted that the respondents could not have closed the
applicant’s case merely after consideration for three years, particularly
in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence circular
dated 30.04.2015, which, according to the applicant, clarifies that no
time limit has been prescribed by the DoP&T for closure of cases
relating to compassionate appointment after expiry of three years.
Learned counsel further submits that the earlier rejection was
challenged by the applicant in OA No. 846 of 2016, which was
allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.07.2016; however,
despite the said order, the respondents again rejected the applicant’s
claim vide communication dated 30.12.2016, primarily relying upon
the earlier speaking order dated 22.04.2016 and holding that the
applicant lacked the requisite merit. It is contended that the impugned
orders have been passed in disregard of the directions of this Tribunal
and the applicable Government instructions, and further that the
respondents have failed to disclose or annex the comparative list of
candidates and the merit of the last selected candidate. Hence prayer
was made to allow the OA and set aside the impugned orders.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the
applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was duly considered
by the competent Board of Officers on several occasions, including
pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 11.07.2016, but she could
not be recommended due to limited vacancies under the prescribed
5% quota and the availability of more deserving candidates. It is
submitted that the applicant secured only 56 marks under the
prescribed merit-point system and, therefore, could not secure
appointment on comparative merit. Learned counsel further submits
that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is
intended only to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial
distress; hence, after due consideration of the applicant’s case in
accordance with the applicable policy and guidelines, her claim was
rightly rejected.
4
ASHISH
KUMAR
8. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the
entire records.
9. Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it
will be useful to quote the operative portion of the Judgment and order
passed in OA no. 846/2016. The same is as under:-
9.After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the O.M. dated 30.4.2015, order dated 22nd April, 2016
is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed and the
order dated 22.4.2016 is quashed and respondents are directed to
reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on
compassionate ground on merit along with other candidates in the
light of O.M. dated 30.4.2015.
10. It is observed that the relief sought by the applicant for
quashing of the order dated 22.04.2016 has become meaningless and
does not survive for consideration in the present Original Application,
inasmuch as the said order had already been quashed by this Tribunal
in the earlier OA No. 846 of 2016. The operative portion of the order
passed in the said OA has already been reproduced hereinabove.
Therefore, no further adjudication or relief with respect to the order
dated 22.04.2016 is called for in the present Original Application.
11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused
the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the earlier
speaking order dated 22.04.2016, whereby the claim of the applicant
for compassionate appointment was rejected and her case was closed,
had already been set aside by this Tribunal in OA No. 846 of 2016
vide order dated 11.07.2016. However, while passing the impugned
communication dated 30.12.2016, the respondents, particularly in
paragraph 3 thereof, have again referred to and relied upon the
aforesaid speaking order dated 22.04.2016 as the basis for
communicating the status of the applicant's case. Once the order dated
22.04.2016 had already been set aside by this Tribunal, the same could
not have been relied upon or treated as subsisting for any purpose.
Thus, the impugned communication dated 30.12.2016, to the extent it
relies upon and reiterates the order dated 22.04.2016, suffers from a
patent illegality and cannot be sustained. Hence, OA is allowed for
5
ASHISH
KUMAR
the reasons discussed hereinabove. Accordingly, the impugned
communication/order dated 30.12.2016 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the
applicant for compassionate appointment afresh in the next CRC
meeting, independently and strictly in accordance with the applicable
policy, guidelines and the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by this
Tribunal in OA No. 846 of 2016, without placing any reliance
whatsoever upon the order dated 22.04.2016, which already stands set
aside. The respondents shall pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order
after due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.
12. No order as to costs. All MAs also stand disposed of.
(Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Judicial)
(Ashish)
6
ASHISH
KUMAR