Dependents of casual labourers with temporary status are ineligible for compassionate appointment under the DoPT scheme.

The applicants are the dependents (widow or children) of five former casual labourers under the Lakshadweep Administration who were granted "temporary status" on 01.09.1993

All five labourers passed away between 1994 and 2003 before being regularly appointed to Group D posts

The applicants initially filed O.A. No. 391/2017, where the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider their claims for compassionate appointment

After a challenge in the High Court (O.P(CAT) No. 105/2018) was withdrawn, the 3rd respondent passed an impugned order (Annexure A1) on 12.09.2024 rejecting the applicants' claims

The respondents argued that as casual labourers with temporary status, the deceased were not "Government servants" as defined under the compassionate appointment scheme

1. Whether dependents of casual labourers conferred with "temporary status" are entitled to compassionate appointment under the Government of India scheme

2. Whether the lapse of 20 to 30 years from the date of the employees' death precludes the claim for compassionate appointment

Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, specifically Clause 5 and 6, which stipulate that temporary status only entitles labourers to specific benefits (like GPF and leave) and excludes all benefits not expressly mentioned

DoPT Consolidated Instructions on Compassionate Appointment (O.M. dated 16.01.2013), which defines a "Government servant" as one appointed on a regular basis, specifically excluding daily wage or casual workers

Principles from Government of India v. P. Venkatesh and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, establishing that compassionate appointment is intended to tide over immediate financial crises and cannot be claimed after significant delays

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants’ reliance on Annexure A5 (a Postal Department case) was misplaced because the Department of Posts operates under its own distinct scheme, whereas the Lakshadweep Administration is governed by the general 1993 DoPT Scheme

Under the 1993 Scheme, the deceased labourers remained casual workers and never attained the status of "regular" Group D employees or "confirmed work-charged staff"

Since they were not "Government servants" per the DoPT definition, their dependents had no legal right to compassionate appointment

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted the extraordinary delay; the deaths occurred between 21 and 32 years ago. Applying Supreme Court precedents, the court noted that the purpose of the scheme is to address immediate penury, and the families' survival for decades proves the absence of the "sudden crisis" required for such relief

The direct answer to the issues is that temporary status does not equate to regular employment for compassionate grounds, and the claims are barred by excessive delay

The Original Application was dismissed with no costs