Sh. Vinod Kumar vs Indian Motrological Department on 16 October 2026

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Narayan, Through- Delhi Labour Union, Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, New Delhi-110054.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus The Director General, Indian Metrological Department, Govt. of India, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

…Management/respondent

Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal, Sh. N. Bhushan and Sh. Prajwal Rathore, Ld. ARs.

For Management/ Respondent: Sh. Radha Mohan Sharma, Ld. AR.

Award 16.10.2026 In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India, through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/147/2018-IR(DU) dated 27.11.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between workmen and managements for adjudication by this Tribunal in the following terms: “Whether Shri Vinod Kumar, elder son of the deceased Shri Laxmi Narayan is entitled to be appointment on regular basis on any Class IV post in Indian

Metrological Department w.e.f. the date of death of his father i.e. 13.04.2008 on compassionate ground? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect?” In pursuance of reference, the claimant filed his statement of claim stating that his deceased father, Sh. Laxmi Narayan, had joined the employment of the management in the year 1968 as a Peon. Initially, he was engaged as a daily wager and was subsequently regularized by the management in the year 1978. Thereafter, he continued to discharge his duties as a regular employee with the management and had an unblemished and uninterrupted record of service. It is stated that Sh. Laxmi Narayan expired on 13.04.2008, leaving behind his legal heirs, namely, Vinod Kumar, Kiran, Sashank, Kartik and Vinayak. It is further stated that Sh. Laxmi Narayan was the sole bread earner of the family and, after his death, the family was left in distress. The claimant further stated that after the death of his father, he repeatedly approached the management seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, but no result came out. He also sent a letter dated 12.12.2013 to the management in this regard. Thereafter, he was asked by the management to furnish an affidavit stating that he had no property in his name. Accordingly, he furnished an affidavit dated 02.06.2014 stating that he did not possess any property. However, despite the same, no further action was taken by the management. The claimant alleged that the management’s failure in not considering his request for appointment on compassionate grounds was illegal, unjust and bad. He stated that his deceased father was a permanent and regular employee and, therefore, his dependent was eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. He further relied upon the scheme for compassionate appointment issued by the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 30.06.1987 and pleaded that dependents of other similarly situated deceased employees had been granted compassionate appointment, whereas his request had been ignored. He further submitted that he could not raise the dispute earlier due to the illness of his son Kartik, who was stated to be suffering from Nephrotic Syndrome, and due to the death of his grandmother on 05.05.2009. It was also pleaded that he had remained unemployed since the death of his father.

It was further stated that a demand notice dated 29.07.2017 was served upon the management, but no reply was received. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were initiated, which failed, resulting in the present reference. The claimant accordingly prayed that an award be passed directing the management to appoint him on compassionate grounds on a regular basis against a Class-IV post w.e.f. 13.04.2008, i.e. the date of death of his father. In response, the management filed its written statement contesting the claim. It was stated that, in terms of DoPT OM No. 14014/6/1994-Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998, as amended from time to time, appointment on compassionate grounds against 5% direct recruitment quota in Group 'C' posts is made to deserving and dependent family members of Government servants who die while in service or retire on medical grounds. Such appointments are made after examination by the High Level Review Committee constituted by the competent authority. It was further stated that the request of the claimant, Sh. Vinod Kumar, son of late Sh. Laxmi Narayan, was considered by the Departmental Review Committee on 10.05.2010 for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, on 17.08.2011 for the year 2009-10 and on 27.10.2016 for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15, along with other applicants and in accordance with the prescribed criteria. However, appointment could not be offered to him due to non-availability of sufficient vacancies and the presence of more deserving candidates amongst the applicants. It was stated that the claimant was informed accordingly. The management further stated that, pursuant to the instructions contained in Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya OM dated 25.07.2018 for amicable settlement of the dispute, a letter dated 20.08.2018 was sent to the claimant requesting him to attend the office for discussion with the concerned authority. The said information was also communicated to the Ministry of Labour. However, no communication or response was received from the claimant. It was further stated that, in the meantime, the claimant's case was considered by the Departmental Review Committee on 08.10.2018 for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. The claimant was placed at serial No. 57 amongst 178 cases in the last merit list prepared on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Departmental Review Committee. It was stated that there were only 14 consolidated vacancies against the 5% direct

recruitment quota in Group 'C' posts during the relevant period and, therefore, appointment could not be offered to the claimant due to non- availability of sufficient vacancies and the presence of more deserving candidates. The claimant filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the management, wherein he denied the averments made by the management in its written statement and reaffirmed the averments made in his statement of claim. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed:

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable?

2. Whether the workman is entitled to be appointed on regular basis as a Class-IV employee with the management on compassionate grounds?

3. To what other relief the workman is entitled?

In support of his case, the claimant examined himself as WW-1 by way of affidavit. He reiterated the averments made in his statement of claim and relied upon the documents mentioned therein. He further deposed regarding his efforts to seek compassionate appointment after the death of his father and the affidavit dated 02.06.2014 furnished by him regarding non-possession of property. He further deposed that he could not raise the dispute earlier due to the illness of his son Kartik and the death of his grandmother. He stated that he remained unemployed after the death of his father and that a demand notice dated 29.07.2017 was served upon the management, followed by conciliation proceedings which failed. He also deposed regarding the espousal of his dispute by the Delhi Labour Union pursuant to resolution dated 12.07.2017. WW-1 relied upon the following documents:

1. Copy of legal demand notice dated 29.07.2017 - Ex. WW-1/1.

2. Copy of postal receipt No. RD839452224IN -Ex. WW-1/2.

3. Copy of statement of claim filed before the Conciliation Officer - Ex. WW-1/3.

4. Copy of espousal/resolution dated 12.07.2017 - Ex. WW-1/4.

5. Copy of reply/rejoinder of representative of Mazdoor Union dated 24.10.2017 - Ex. WW-1/5.

6. Copy of rejoinder filed before the Conciliation Officer - Ex. WW- 1/6.

7. Copy of Office Order No. AE-231 issued by the management - Ex. WW-1/7.

8. Copy of letter dated 12.12.2013 written by the claimant to the management - Ex. WW-1/8.

9. Copy of death certificate of late Sh. Laxmi Narayan - Ex. WW-1/9.

10. Copy of Duty I.D. Card of late Sh. Laxmi Narayan issued by the management - Ex. WW-1/10.

11. Copy of Medical Book of late Sh. Laxmi Narayan issued by the management - Ex. WW-1/11.

12. Copy of caste certificate of the claimant - Ex. WW-1/12. The claimant was put to the test of cross-examination. He admitted that he had received the management's letter dated 20.08.2018 calling him for a discussion regarding compromise, but he did not attend the same as his case was already pending before the Tribunal. The said letter was marked as Ex. WW-1/M1. He stated that he did not know whether 178 persons had applied for compassionate appointment, whether his serial number was 57 in the merit list or whether only 14 vacancies were available at the relevant time. He admitted that the management had asked him to furnish an affidavit stating that he did not possess any property or asset. He further stated that he had furnished the said affidavit, but its copy was not available on the record. In rebuttal, the management examined Dr. Kuldeep Srivastava, Scientist 'E' (Legal Cell), O/o the Director General of Meteorology, India Meteorological Department, as MW-1. In his affidavit, MW-1 deposed that the claimant’s case was considered by the Departmental Review Committee from time to time along with other applicants in accordance with the prescribed criteria. He stated that the claimant was not offered appointment due to non-availability of sufficient vacancies and the presence of more deserving candidates. He further deposed that, pursuant to the Ministry of Labour OM dated 25.07.2018, the claimant was called for discussion regarding

settlement vide letter dated 20.08.2018, but he did not respond. The claimant’s case was thereafter considered by the Departmental Review Committee on 08.10.2018 and subsequently on 27.10.2021 for the relevant years, but no appointment could be offered to him for the aforesaid reasons. He stated that the outcome was communicated to the claimant vide letters dated 25.01.2019, 20.09.2019 and 17.12.2021. MW-1 relied upon the following documents:

1. Letter dated 07.09.2017 issued to Sh. Vinod Kumar regarding compassionate appointment - Ex. MW-1/1.

2. Letter dated 22.05.2013 issued to Sh. Vinod Kumar regarding compassionate appointment - Ex. MW-1/2.

3. Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya OM dated 25.07.2018

- Ex. MW-1/3.

4. Letter dated 20.08.2018 communicating information to the Ministry of Labour - Ex. MW-1/4.

5. Letter No. A-12012/11/09/E-(2) dated 25.01.2019 - Ex. MW- 1/5.

6. Letter No. E(2) 109/Comp. Appt./2020 dated 20.09.2019 - Ex. MW-1/6.

7. Letter No. E(2) 109/Comp. Appt./2020 dated 17.12.2021 - Ex. MW-1/7. MW-1 was put to the test of cross-examination, wherein he admitted that late Sh. Laxmi Narayan was working as MA with the management and that he was a regular and permanent employee of the management. He further stated that he had brought the records pertaining to sanctioned posts, objective criteria for the years 2007 to 2021 and the relevant DoPT Office Memorandum, including the OM dated 09.10.1998. He admitted that Ex. MW-1/7A did not contain the year-wise total number of vacant posts under Group-C. He further admitted that the merit lists are maintained and preserved by the management. He also admitted that the management had no document or material to show that the claimant had secured employment after the death of his father on 13.04.2008. It is worth noting that tvide order dated 20.08.2026, the claimant’s right to further cross-examine MW-1, Sh. Kuldeep Shrivastava, was closed on due to repeated adjournments despite the fact that the management’s witness had been appearing for

his cross-examination. The witness was accordingly discharged, and the matter was listed for final arguments. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. ARs for both parties and gone through records of this case. Since the Ld. AR for the claimant failed to appear to address arguments despite being provided several opportunities, the case culled out from the pleadings and evidence, rests upon the premise that the claimant’s father passed away while in service with the management, and his request for appointment on compassionate grounds had not been acceded by the management despite being eligible for the same. He drew attention of this Tribunal towards cross-examination of MW1, where he admitted that Ex. MW1/7A didn’t contain the year-wise total number of vacant posts under group ‘C’. While, the respondent’s case revolves around the premise that the claimant’s case was considered not only once but on several occasions, but the case of the claimant couldn’t met with the objective criteria laid down for appointment on compassionate grounds. Since more eligible cases for compassionate appointment were available during that period, so the appointment couldn’t be offered to him qua the existing vacancy under 5 % quota. In the present case, there is no quarrel upon the fact that the claimant’s father was in service with the management when he passed away. It is further not in dispute that the claimant was asked to furnish an affidavit regarding possession of immovable or movable properties. It is further the management’s case that the copy of affidavit regarding disclosing of immovable or movable properties was not found. Before proceeding further, relevant Paragraphs of a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in In Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2024, decided on 13 November 2024 (2024 INSC 867) is required to be reproduced herein:

12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging urgent situation where the

sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such a compassionate appointment.

13. It must be clearly stated here that in a case where there is no policy, instruction, or rule providing for an appointment on compassionate grounds, such an appointment cannot be granted.

14. The very basis and the rationale, wherever such policies are framed for compassionate appointment is with an object to grant relief to a family in distress and facing destitution, and thus an exception is culled out to the general rule in favour of the family of the deceased employee. This is resorted to by taking into consideration the services rendered by such employee and the consequent legitimate legal expectations apart from the sudden change in status and affairs of the family because of the unexpected turn of events, i.e. the loss of the sole bread earner. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and cannot be claimed as a vested right. In paragraph 12, the Court explained that such appointment is not a condition of service that must be given to the dependent of every employee automatically who dies in harness. Rather, it is granted after proper scrutiny of the relevant parameters, with the object of providing relief to a family facing sudden financial difficulties upon the death of its earning member. The entitlement to such appointment remains subject to the fulfilment of the requirements prescribed under the applicable policy, instructions or rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted in the absence of a policy, instruction or rule authorising such appointment. The fundamental object of compassionate appointment is to provide relief to a family facing distress and destitution and that the provision constitutes an exception to the general rule of recruitment. The aforesaid principles make it clear that compassionate appointment is not an automatic entitlement arising merely from the death of a government employee. The claim of a dependent must be

examined in accordance with the applicable scheme and the eligibility criteria prescribed therein, keeping in view the purpose for which compassionate appointment is being granted. In light of the above discussion, my issue-wise findings are as follows: Issue no.-1 The record reveals that the present dispute was referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government for adjudication. The reference had been taken up, and both parties had been given opportunities to present their respective cases. No sufficient ground has been made out to prove that the present proceedings are not maintainable. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the management, and the proceedings are held to be maintainable. Issue no.-2 and 3 In the present case, the compassionate appointment scheme contained in DoPT O.M. No. 14014/6/1994-Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998 is applicable. Under the said scheme, appointment on compassionate grounds against Group ‘C’ posts is restricted to a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota and is subject to the prescribed criteria and availability of vacancies. Such appointment is not automatic upon the death of a Government servant but is intended to provide relief to a family facing financial destitution. The management, through its written statement and the testimony of MW-1, has established that the claimant’s case was considered by the Departmental Review Committee on several occasions, namely, on 10.05.2010 for the years 2007–08 and 2008–09, on 17.08.2011 for 2009–10, on 27.10.2016 for the years 2011–12 to 2014–15, on 08.10.2018 for the years 2015–16 to 2017–18 against 14 vacancies, and on 27.10.2021 for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 against three vacancies for each respective period. On 24.04.2026, the management filed a compilation containing the applicable objective criteria, year-wise vacancy details and merit lists from 2007 onwards. The merit list reflects that the claimant was placed at serial no. 57 amongst 178 applicants.

The aforesaid documentary evidence, read with testimony of MW- 1 regarding the repeated consideration of the claimant’s case, establishes that his claim was assessed through a comparative assessment of applicants in accordance with the prescribed criteria, keeping in view the vacancies available under the scheme. The material on record, therefore, establishes that the management did not reject the claimant’s request arbitrarily or without consideration, but examined it on multiple occasions in the context of the applicable criteria, available vacancies and comparative merit. It is pertinent to reiterate that compassionate appointment is not a vested right accruing automatically upon the death of a Government servant. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors., such appointment is subject to scrutiny under the applicable scheme and is intended to provide relief to a family facing financial distress. Consequently, the mere fact that the claimant’s father died in service did not confer upon the claimant an indefeasible right to appointment. In view of the repeated consideration of his case and the documentary material concerning the applicable criteria, vacancies and comparative merit, this Tribunal finds that the management dealt with the claimant’s request in accordance with the applicable compassionate appointment scheme. The claimant has, therefore, failed to establish an entitlement to appointment merely on the ground of his father’s death in service. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the management duly considered the claimant’s case for compassionate appointment on multiple occasions in accordance with the applicable scheme, taking into account the prescribed objective criteria, available vacancies and comparative merit of the applicants. The claimant has failed to establish any vested right to compassionate appointment merely on account of the death of his father in service. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is decided against the claimant and in favour of the management. Consequent thereto, issue no. 3 also goes in favor of the management. In light of the above findings, the reference is answered against the claimant and in favour 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case file be consigned to the Record Room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG Dated 16.10.2026 Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II