Sh. Ashok Kumar vs N.D.M.C on 9 March 2026

1. Whether the action of the management of NDMC in not granting compassionate employment to Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Bhurey Lal is legal and justified?

2. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” To prove his case, the claimant examined himself as WW1. He reiterated the facts stated in the claim statement and relied upon the following documents:

1. Minutes of meeting of the committee constituted for examining the cases of appointments on compassionate grounds. (Ex. WW1/1)

2. List of recommended cases of compassionate appointments duly attested by the management. (Ex. WW1/2)

3. List of rejected cases of compassionate appointments duly attested by the management (Ex. WW1/3).

4. List of deferred cases of compassionate appointments duly attested by the management. (Ex. WW1/4).

5. List of daily wagers appointed during 2004. (Ex. WW1/5).

6. Death certificate of the deceased father of the claimant (Mark A).

7. Family details and correspondences with the management regarding compassionate appointment. (Mark B).

During cross-examination, the claimant admitted that he raised the dispute regarding compassionate appointment after 8 years of his father’s death. He further admitted that he had no knowledge of the grounds and criteriaconsidered for compassionate appointment. He further deposed that his father passed away leavingbehind four dependents, namely himself, his elder brother, his elder sister and his

younger brother. He admitted that his siblings were aware of his claim, however no ‘No Objection Certificate’ had been filed by them.

In rebuttal, the management also examined one witness, Ms. Meena Kaushal, Deputy Director (Civil and Electrical Establishment). She deposed that the management, while considering and recommending numerous applications of such candidates, follows the guidelines of the DoPT, such as the seniority of the deceased, his age at the time of death, the dependents left behind by him, particularly unmarried daughters, the number of years of service left at the time of death, physical disability of the applicant, etc. She stated that the lists of recommended, rejected, and deferred cases were already on record and had been exhibited by the claimant himself. During her cross-examination, the witness admitted that the father of the claimant, Sh. Bhurey lal, was working as a Mate in the Civil Engineering department and expired on 19.02.2004. she further admitted that the claimant’s application for his appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected as per the policy and guidelines of DoPT after due consideration. She also admitted that the claimant’s younger brother, Sh. Sitaram, was receiving pension till attaining the age of 25 years. During the course of proceedings, some startling facts has been emerged. On 10.03.2025, the management produced the personal file of the claimant. It was revealed that the claimant’s younger brother, Sh. Sitaram, was shown to have received pension till 2014 and was shown to be 15 years old at the time of their father’s death. However, the personal file containedmultiple affidavits with different date of birth of Sh. Sitaram and other family members. In one affidavit, Sh.Sitaramwas shown to be 22 years old at the time of death of his father.In the application addressed to the secretary, NDMC, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the claimant declared his own date of birth as 05.01.1985.The elder brother’s date of birth was shown as 11.09.1975, while the younger brother was shown to be born in 1995. The date of birth of her elder sister, Smt. Krishna was shown

as 15.05.1971. The affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Kumar dated 07.06.2004 states that his younger brother, Sh. Sitaram, was born on 10.12.1995. Another affidavit of the claimant, Sh. Ashok Kumar, also dated 07.06.2004, shows the date of birth of Smt. Krishna, the claimant’s sister, as 10.10.1985. In yet another affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Kumar dated 22.11.2004, he declared his own date of birth as 04.07.1978. In another affidavit, Sh. Sitaramwas shown to have been born on 20.10.1982, while the applicant, Sh. Ashok Kumar, was shown to have been born on 05.07.1979. Further, the noting on the personal file showed that both Sh. Rajinder Kumar and the claimant Sh. Ashok Kumar were married, whereas Sh. Sitaram was shown as unmarried. The pension record broughts by the management reveal that Sh. Sitaram was shown to be entitled for family pension till he attained the age of 25 years. His date of birth was taken on the basis of a medical examination as 1989. Neither the year 1982 nor 1995was takeninto consideration. Except for a medical certificate furnished by management, nothing is foundrecord to establish his age. There is no document to show whether any x-ray or a bone density test was conductedfor determining his age, and no such report or film in this regard has been placed on record. No reason has been assigned as to why the department deemed it necessary to medically examine Sh. Sitaram to establish his correct age. The mention of different age of Sh. Sitaram at different places, along with different age of the claimant Sh. Ashok Kumar in their affidavits, makes the claimant’s case doubtful. The claimant didn’t disclose at any point that he was married or unmarried. At some places, he is shown to have been born in 1979, while at other places, his year of birth is mentioned as 1985, and the noting on record suggests that he was married. Therefore, it appears that the claimant attempted to secure dual benefits, pension benefits to the younger brother up to the age of 25, despite claiming his year of birth as 1995 or earlier, i.e., 1982, and appointment on compassionate grounds, even though the claimant was

already married, asnone of the several affidavits disclose the marital status of the claimant. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the claimant is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided against the claimant and in favour of the management. Consequent thereto, issue no. 2 also goes in favor of the management. In light of the above findings, the reference is answered against the claimant and in favor of the management. Accordingly, the claim of the claimant stands dismissed. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D Act. The case file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Dated09.03.2026 Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II