Ved Prakash Sharma vs Income Tax Department

Reserved on 26.10.2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD

th
Dated: This the 28 day of October 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Original Application No. 330/00505/2021

Ved Prakash Sharma aged about 39 years, S/o Late Ram Prakash R/o
Mohalla Jai Radhey, Dilliwala Chauk, District Hathras.
...........Applicant.
By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Dhrubvanshi

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance &
Revenue, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) 16/69, Civil
Line, Kanpur.

3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Admn.) O/o the Principal
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax UP (West) Region, Kanpur.

4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Aligarh.

5. The Income Tax Officer, Hathras.
..........Respondents.

By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi
O R D E R
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant
under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking
following reliefs:-
“a) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be please to quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the respondents with direction
to respondent No.2 to reconsider the claim of compassionate ground
appointment of the applicant, as per existing Rules.
b) The Hon’ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to direct the
respondents to provide the proper assistance by the welfare inspector of the
department, before reassessment of the case.
c) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass order or direction
as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2

d) To award the cost in favour of the applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The father of the applicant died in harness on 13.11.2008 while
working as a Lower Division Clerk, leaving behind his widow and two
sons including the applicant. The applicant applied for appointment on
compassionate grounds on 16.12.2008. As his claim was not decided, he
filed O.A. No. 922 of 2011, which was disposed of on 11.08.2011 with a
direction to the respondents to decide his claim on merit. Despite
submitting the required pro forma and documents, his claim remained
undecided. He again filed O.A. No. 1712 of 2014, which was allowed on
10.05.2019 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider his claim
within two months. However, the respondents again rejected his claim
vide order dated 05.08.2019. The applicant contends that he was awarded
only 25 grading points instead of 43 due to incorrect assessment of marks
relating to dependent family members and family property. Despite
submitting objections on 13.03.2020, his grievance was not redressed.
Hence, he has filed the present Original Application challenging the
rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the
allegations made in the O.A. It has been stated that the applicant was
repeatedly asked to submit the prescribed pro forma, as the format was
revised from time to time. The applicant submitted the required
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
documents, including no objection affidavits from his family members.
His claim was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee,
which awarded him 25 grading points, whereas the cut-off for
appointment to the post of Tax Assistant was 32 points. Accordingly, he
was not recommended for appointment due to his lower grading points.
The respondents further submit that the applicant was informed of the
marks awarded to him and was given an opportunity to raise objections.
However, they state that his claim was assessed in accordance with the
applicable criteria. The respondents, therefore, contend that the impugned
order dated 05.08.2019 suffers from no illegality or infirmity and thus the
O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

3


4. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which
the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the
contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been
stated in the rejoinder affidavit.
5. I have heard Mr. M.K Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the
applicant, and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the
respondents, and have perused the record.
6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the
respondents have wrongly rejected the applicant’s claim for
compassionate appointment without properly considering the financial
condition of the deceased employee’s family. It is contended that the
applicant’s father was the sole breadwinner of the family and, after his
death, the family faced serious financial hardship. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submitted that the respondents wrongly awarded only 25
grading points to the applicant by counting only one dependent family
member instead of three and by incorrectly assessing the value of the
family property. He next submitted that applicant was entitled to 43
grading points and, therefore, his claim was wrongly rejected despite his
having a higher merit score than the cut-off points of 32. It is further
contended that, despite the directions issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No.
MANISH KUMAR
922 of 2011 and O.A. No. 1712 of 2014, the respondents failed to
SRIVASTAVA
properly reconsider the applicant’s claim. The impugned order dated
05.08.2019 is also challenged on the ground that the respondents did not
disclose the proper calculation and detailed basis of the grading points
awarded to the applicant, thereby making the decision arbitrary and
unreasonable. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the
applicant was repeatedly asked to submit the required pro forma and
documents, which he duly furnished, but his claim was not considered
fairly. It is argued that the respondents failed to consider the relevant
family circumstances and financial hardship of the applicant in
accordance with the object of the compassionate appointment scheme.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the impugned
order be quashed and the respondents be directed to reconsider the

4

applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the
applicable rules and criteria.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted
that the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was considered
by the Compassionate Appointment Committee in accordance with the
applicable instructions and criteria. The committee, in its meeting dated
17.04.2018, considered the pending applications and awarded grading
points on the prescribed parameters. The matter was subsequently
reviewed by the High Power Committee on 11.02.2019. It is further
submitted that, under the criteria adopted by the committee, a son who
had crossed the age of 25 years at the time of the death of the government
servant was not treated as a wholly dependent family member for the
purpose of compassionate appointment. Since the applicant was more than
25 years of age at the time of his father’s death, the High Power
Committee found him ineligible and did not award him any grading
points. Although the earlier committee had awarded grading points to the
applicant, the same were not retained after review by the High Power
Committee. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the
last candidate recommended for appointment under the recommendations
dated 17.04.2018 had secured 47 grading points. The applicant was,
therefore, not eligible for appointment under the criteria applied by the
committee. It is contended that the respondents considered the applicant’s
case in accordance with the applicable instructions and no illegality has
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
been committed in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the
respondents pray that the O.A. be dismissed.
8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both
parties and perused the material available on record.
9. The issue for consideration is whether the impugned order dated
05.08.2019 suffers from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference
by this Tribunal.
10. It is evident from the record that the applicant’s claim for
compassionate appointment was considered by the competent committee.
The applicant has challenged the grading points awarded to him and

5

contended that his family circumstances and the number of dependent
family members were not properly considered. On the other hand, the
respondents have stated that the applicant was not considered for
compassionate appointment as he was more than 25 years of age at the
time of his father’s death.
11. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The claim has
to be considered in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.
The earlier orders were passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 922 of 2011
and O.A. No. 1712 of 2014 directing the respondents to consider or
reconsider the applicant’s claim. However, those orders did not direct the
respondents to appoint the applicant. The question, therefore, is whether
his claim was considered in accordance with the applicable scheme.
12. From the impugned order, it appears that the applicant’s claim was
rejected on the ground that he was more than 25 years of age at the time
of his father’s death. I am of the view that the applicant’s claim could not
have been rejected solely on this ground. If the applicant was dependent
on the income of the deceased employee, his claim was required to be
considered in accordance with the applicable scheme, without rejecting it
on the ground of age. The competent committee was required to examine
his case on the basis of the relevant eligibility conditions and other
applicable criteria. Therefore, the decision of the committee, to the extent
that it rejected the applicant’s claim solely on the ground of his age,
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
cannot be sustained. Since applicant has not challenged the previous
orders passed by the committee concerned, thus, submission raised on
behalf of the applicant assailing the previous orders need no interference.
13. In view of the above, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the
competent Circle Relaxation Committee to reconsider the applicant’s
claim for compassionate appointment whenever the next meeting of the
Circle Relaxation Committee is convened. While reconsidering the claim,
the Committee shall not reject it merely on the ground that the applicant
was more than 25 years of age at the time of his father’s death. The
Committee shall consider his case in accordance with the applicable rules,
instructions and other relevant criteria. It shall also prepare a detailed
chart showing the marks awarded to the applicant under each parameter,

6

along with reasons for awarding or not awarding marks under each head.
The Committee shall thereafter take a fresh and reasoned decision and
communicate the same to the applicant.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the O.A. stands disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.

( JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII )
Member (J)

Manish

MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA