An employed, separately residing son’s dependency status must be examined before rejecting compassionate appointment.

Herman Minz, an employee of Rourkela Steel Plant, was discharged from service with effect from 24 December 2020 on medical-invalidation grounds.

Before his discharge, he nominated his younger son, Pankaj Minz, for compassionate appointment under SAIL Personnel Policy Circular No. 1007 dated 30 August 2011 (“PPC 1007”).

During document verification, the respondents found that Herman Minz’s elder son, Manoranjan Minz, was employed with the CISF.

Relying on Clause 8 of PPC 1007, which excluded compassionate appointment where a family member was employed in a SAIL unit, PSU, or Government service, the respondents rejected Pankaj’s request on 16 July 2021.

Pankaj sought reconsideration, asserting that his elder brother had obtained employment on his own merit, had married, and had been living separately for approximately five years without supporting the applicants’ family.

The reconsideration request was rejected on 15 March 2022 without a factual inquiry into the elder brother’s dependency or household status.

The applicants challenged both rejection orders under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, relying on the Tribunal’s earlier decision in Padmini Nanda & Anr. v. Chairman, SAIL, O.A. No. 987 of 2013.

Whether the employment of the applicant’s elder brother in the CISF automatically disentitled the applicant from consideration for compassionate appointment under Clause 8 of PPC 1007, notwithstanding the claim that the elder brother was living separately and was not dependent on or supporting the employee’s family?

Whether the respondents were required to conduct a factual inquiry into the elder brother’s status and dependency before rejecting the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment?

Whether the rejection orders dated 16 July 2021 and 15 March 2022 were liable to be quashed for failure to consider the applicable policy and the applicants’ factual assertions?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing applications before the Tribunal.

It relied principally on PPC 1007, whose objective is to provide relief to dependent family members in cases of death, permanent total disablement, or medical invalidation.

Clause 4.1 defines a dependent family member as the spouse, son, or daughter who was wholly dependent on the employee at the relevant time.

Clause 8 provides that compassionate appointment is available only where no member of the family is employed in a SAIL unit, PSU, or Government service.

The Tribunal also followed its earlier decision in Padmini Nanda & Anr. v. Chairman, SAIL, O.A. No. 987 of 2013, which required an inquiry into the status of an employed elder son before reconsideration of a compassionate-appointment claim.

The respondents relied on SAIL v. Awadhesh Singh, Civil Appeals Nos. 6465–6469 of 1998, for the principle that compassionate appointment is intended to prevent destitution and ordinarily cannot be claimed where another dependent is already in service.

The Tribunal held that the decisive question was not merely whether the elder brother was employed in Government service, but whether he qualified as a relevant dependent family member for purposes of the compassionate-appointment scheme.

Clause 4.1 of PPC 1007 restricts the benefit to persons wholly dependent on the employee at the time of medical invalidation.

The applicants had specifically asserted that the elder brother had secured employment and married before Herman Minz’s medical invalidation and had thereafter maintained a separate household.

On the material before it, the Tribunal accepted that the elder brother did not appear to fall within the category of a dependent member whose employment would automatically defeat the claim.

However, because the respondents had rejected the claim without verifying those factual assertions, the Tribunal considered an inquiry necessary.

Following Padmini Nanda, it held that the competent authority must ascertain the elder brother’s actual status and dependency before making a fresh decision.

The respondents were directed to conduct an inquiry into the status of Manoranjan Minz, the applicant’s elder brother, and thereafter reconsider Pankaj Minz’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with PPC 1007 and the outcome of that inquiry.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed within 120 days from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

The OA was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.