Facts
The applicant, Lokendra Pal, sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, a Security Guard (MTS), on April 10, 2012, while in service
Source reference: p.2His mother submitted an application for compassionate appointment on April 30, 2012, which was forwarded on May 07, 2012
Source reference: p.2The applicant's case was considered by the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) on four occasions: August 18, 2015, March 28, 2018, January 22, 2019, and February 21, 2022
Source reference: p.2, p.4The DSC adopted a point-based criteria as recommended by the CBDT on April 08, 2015, and recommended candidates with higher points within available vacancies
Source reference: p.4The applicant was not recommended on the earlier occasions due to low merit points
Source reference: p.4In the February 21, 2022 meeting, the DSC recommended the applicant for the post of Tax Assistant, subject to relaxation in the Earning Member clause by the CBDT Secretary
Source reference: p.4-5This recommendation was forwarded to the CBDT, which rejected the claim on May 25, 2022, citing various grounds and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others – JT 1994(3) SC 525
Source reference: p.5Consequently, the applicant's case for compassionate appointment was closed via an order dated June 15, 2022
Source reference: p.2The applicant initiated the present Original Application challenging this closure and seeking a direction for reconsideration
Source reference: p.2Issues
1. Whether the respondents' action in closing the applicant's case for compassionate appointment, despite multiple considerations by the DSC, was justified
Source reference: p.22. Whether the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment should be reconsidered by the respondents, given the allegations of discrimination and reliance on DOPT guidelines
Source reference: p.2-3Law Applied
The tribunal primarily applied the DOPT guidelines regarding compassionate appointment
Source reference: p.2-3Key precedents included Union Bank of India & Ors. M.T. Latheesh – 2006 SCC (L&S) 1646, which affirmed the limited scope of judicial review in such matters
Source reference: p.6Crucially, the court relied on Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others – JT 1994(3) SC 525, which articulated that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but to enable a family to tide over sudden crisis from indigent circumstances, cannot be granted after a reasonable lapse of time, and is not a vested right
Source reference: p.5, p.7-8Further, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar & Ors – JT 1994 (2) SC 183 was cited for the principle that courts cannot direct appointment but only reconsideration
Source reference: p.7The decisions in State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006)5 SCC 766 and National Institute of Technology Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh 2007(1) SCC (L&S) 668 reinforced that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a substantial lapse of time, as the family would have survived the initial crisis
Source reference: p.8-9Reasoning
The tribunal analyzed the applicant's case against the established legal principles governing compassionate appointments.
Source reference: no citationIt acknowledged that the father of the applicant died in 2012 and the family has survived for many years since, indicating that the immediate crisis for which compassionate appointment is granted may no longer exist
Source reference: p.6, p.9The court noted that the applicant's case was considered on four occasions by the DSC in accordance with DOPT guidelines and a point-based criterion, but he could not be recommended due to lower merit points or the availability of more deserving candidates
Source reference: p.4Even when the DSC finally recommended him in 2022, it was subject to a relaxation that was ultimately rejected by the competent authority (CBDT) citing the principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (Supra)
Source reference: p.4-5The tribunal emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is intended to relieve financial destitution, and courts have a limited scope of judicial review, unable to substitute their opinion for that of the Committee
Source reference: p.6-7It further noted that the judgment cited by the applicant regarding terminal benefits and family pension was distinguishable, as the core issue here was the family's indigence and the timely application of compassionate appointment principles
Source reference: p.3, p.7-8The court found no procedural infirmity in the respondents’ decision-making process
Source reference: p.6, p.8Holding
The tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to satisfy the "litmus test" laid down by the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra), particularly regarding the requirement of indigent circumstances and the timing of the application
Since the family had survived a substantial period after the father's death in 2012, and the matter was duly considered without procedural infirmity, the purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate relief, was not met
Source reference: p.6, p.9The tribunal held that it could not direct appointment but only reconsideration, which had already occurred through a due process
Source reference: p.7Accordingly, the Original Application No. 740/2022 was dismissed for being devoid of merit
Source reference: p.9There was no order as to costs
Source reference: p.11Original Court PDF
Lokendra Pal v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue & Ors., Original Application No. 740 of 2022 (Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in