Compassionate appointment eligibility cannot be denied based on descent or the legitimacy of the claimant.

The applicant is the widow of Late P. Kannan, a Civilian Motor Driver Grade-I who died in harness on October 11, 2022

Following his death, the applicant was granted a family pension

On October 16, 2023, she applied for a compassionate ground appointment in a Group-C post

The 4th Respondent, via an impugned order dated May 21, 2025, questioned the validity of the applicant’s marriage and legal heir certificates, raising doubts despite the prior sanctioning of her pension

The application was returned by the Higher Headquarter citing document "mismatches" and discrepancies regarding family members

The applicant challenged this order, asserting it was passed without jurisdiction, violated Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, and contained derogatory remarks regarding her personal relationships

1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, which questioned the applicant’s eligibility based on familial origins and marital status, is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the denial of compassionate appointment on the grounds of "descent" or legitimacy of familial origins violates constitutional mandates.

Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination in public employment on the grounds of "descent"

The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi (2019) 14 SCC 646, which established that a policy for compassionate appointment cannot discriminate against children or descendants based on the perceived legitimacy of a marriage

The Tribunal invoked the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring that an applicant be heard before their application is rejected for document discrepancies

The Tribunal found that the 2nd Respondent’s summary return of the application without calling for clarification or providing a hearing constituted a clear violation of natural justice

Regarding the 4th Respondent’s order, the Tribunal noted that the official exceeded his jurisdiction by making "unwarranted remarks" about the applicant's alleged extra-marital or live-in relationships

The court reasoned that "descent" under Article 16(2) encompasses familial origins; therefore, a policy cannot classify descendants as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" to deny appointment

The Tribunal sternly observed that the 4th Respondent’s remarks were "irrelevant" and "outraging the modesty of a woman," nearly warranting contempt proceedings

The court concluded that since the applicant’s pension had already been sanctioned based on the same documents, the 4th Respondent had no legal basis to later question those same records for the purpose of compassionate appointment

The Respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment in accordance with the law, ensuring she is given a fair opportunity to be heard. This exercise must be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the order

No order was made as to costs