Sh. Raj Kumar vs Central Pollution Control Board on 14 October 2026

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

Sh. Raj Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Ratan Lal, Through- Delhi Labour Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

The Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India, Privesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110032.

…Management/respondent

Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Prajwal Rathore, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent: Sh. Kartikey Sahay, Ld. AR.

Award 14.10.2026

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-42011/212/2018-IR (DU) dated 12.02.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal, terms of which are as under: “Whether the claim of Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Late Rattan Lal for appointment on a Class IV post w.e.f. 25.09.2009 on compassionate ground with the management of Central Pollution Control Board is legal and justified? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect?”

2. In response to the reference, claimant has filed his claim statement claiming that his late father Sh. Rattan Lal joined in the employment of the management on 01.11.1997 on the post of “Sweeper”. He was taken a job initially through a employment exchange, however, vide office order dated 18.08.1997, he was assigned the post of Attendant and thereafter, vide office order dated 10.12.1999, he was promoted as Senior Attendant. It is the case of the claimant that on 25.09.2009, the workman aforesaid namely Sh. Rattan Lal was expired due to heart attack, leaving behind the following legal heirs:- Name Relation

i) Champa Devi

Wife

ii) Maya Devi W/o Late Sh. Rajender Daughter

iii) Rajesh Kumar

Son

iv) Rakesh Kumar

Son

v) Krishna W/o Late Sh. Jitender Daughter

vi) Raj Kumar

Son

After the death of Sh. Rattan Lal, he had applied the job for compassionate ground, but, he was not given any job. In fact, he has not been informed even the fate of his requests regarding appointment on compassionate ground by the management. He further submitted that in the similar circumstances, the dependents of other deceased employees have

been given employment on compassionate ground, but he was ignored in this regard. As such, he submitted that management be directed to give the job to him on compassionate ground.

3. Respondent has filed the counter reply of the claim. He has not denied the facts mentioned in the claim statement about the appointment of the deceased employee as well as their date of death. According to him, application of the claimant workman for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the management. True facts and circumstances of the denial of appointment on compassionate ground has been concealed by the workman. An Inquiry was held where it was found that the workman Sh. Raj Kumar was married at the time of death of Late Sh. Rattan Lal and he was working in a private company. As per the terms of the provisions of “Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under Central Government: issued under DoPT O.M. No. 14014/6/1994-Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998, as amended from time to time, married son was not considered dependent of the government servant. Moreover, the Mother of the claimant Sh. Raj Kumar i.e. Mrs. Champa Devi W/o Late Sh. Rattan Lal was a regular employee in Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Thus, the financial condition of the family of the deceased was not in destitution and had sufficient means of income. Moreover, on being inquiry, the deceased employee has owned three storey house in Delhi. Thus, he submitted that claim of the claimant be dismissed.

4. Claimant has filed the rejoinder, whereby he has not denied that his mother was not the retired employee. He had not denied that he was not married at the time of his father’s death. However, he submitted that the married son can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

5. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 24.01.2020, following issues have been framed i.e. :-

(i) Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

(ii) Whether the claimant is legally entitled to be appointed against a class IV post w.e.f. 25.09.2009 on compassionate ground with the management.

(iii) To what relief the claimant is entitled to.

6. Workman in support of his contention has entered into the witness box after filling his affidavit as Ex. WW1/A. He has reiterated the facts as mentioned in his claim statement. He has relied upon the following documents i.e.:

(i) Ex. WW1/1: Copy of statement of claim filed before the Conciliation Officer.

(ii) Ex. WW1/2: Copy of Espousal (meeting held on 10.10.2017) passed by the Union.

(iii) Ex. WW1/3: Copy of legal demand notice dated 25.10.2017.

(iv) Ex. WW1/4: Copy of postal receipt no. RD863829215IN dated 28.10.2017.

(v) Ex. WW1/5: Copy of reply/written statement filed by the management.

(vi) Ex. WW1/6: Copy of rejoinder filed by the claimant.

7. Workman was put to the test of cross-examination where he admitted that he had made an application in the year 2017 for appointment on compassionate ground. Earlier, he was regularly visiting the office of the management soon after the death of his father they were advising him to come later. Ultimately after 7 years he submitted his application for compassionate appointment. Since last 10 years he was occasionally working as daily wager. He admitted to have two issues and he got married in the year 2002. His elder child aged about 16 years is not studying and younger one is studying in a govt. school. His mother was not working anywhere nor is she getting any pension. He denied that his mother was a regular employee of MCD. His mother had never retired from service. He admitted that he is residing with his wife and children in the 3rd floor of the building which stands recorded in the name of his deceased father. His mother is also staying in the same house. The building consists of 4 floors and his mother

resides in the ground floor alone. The 1st and 2nd floor are being occupied by his elder brothers.

8. In rebuttal, management has examined one Ms. Madhu Luthra in support of his contention. She has reiterated the facts as mentioned in her written statement. She has relied upon following documents i.e.:

(i) Ex. M1W1/A: Copy of minutes of meeting of Committee dated 25.03.2010 and 26.03.2010.

(ii) Ex. M1W1/B: Copy of O.M. 14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 16.01.2013.

(iii) Ex. M1W1/C: Copy of FAQs dated 30.05.2013.

9. The witness was put to the test of cross-examination wherein she admitted that she was not a member of the committee formed by the management for considering the application of the claimant for compassionate appointment. She was not deputed by the management for verification of financial position of the family of deceased workman Sh. Ratan Lal. The management has no document other than Ex. M1W1/A, M1W1/B and M1W1/C. Except document Ex. M1W1/A, the management has no other document to show that Smt. Champa, wife of the deceased workman was employed. She could not say if the finding of committee regarding employment Smt. Champa Devi is based on no evidence and concocted by the Committee. She further admitted that management has no material or document to show that the claimant was employed anywhere from 2009 till date. She was asked to bring the service record of the workman. She has brought the same which is Ex. MW1/4 (OSR).

10. I have heard the arguments at bar and perused the record of this case. Whole of the case of the claimant rests upon the premise that he has not been communicated anything in writing by the management about rejection of his claim which he has applied in the year 2017. His further claim is based upon the fact that still he has been unemployed.

11. While the management’s case rests upon the premise that fact finding enquiry was made in 2010 itself as per Ex. MW1/A where the committee came to the conclusion that the claimant was not entitled for

appointment on compassionate ground rather than his mother can be considered upon verification of the fact about her employment in MCD. Moreover, factum of keeping silent for more than seven years after rejecting his application for compassionate appointment ground itself show that the family of the deceased was not in any dire need of financial assistance and was doing well be themselves.

12. Object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian considerations and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet. Therefore, a provision was made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependent of the deceased who may be eligible for such an appointment. Thus, there is a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated.

13. In the present case, certain facts are not in disputes i.e. the father of the claimant has joined the services in 1997 and he was expired while in service. Further, the application has been moved after seven years for compassionate ground. Further it is not in dispute that the deceased has the three storey house in Delhi. All the three sons of the deceased are married. The claimant Rajkumar was also married in 2002. Deceased employee was died in 2009, in just seven years ago claimant was married having two issues. Further, though the workman Rajkumar has put the suggestion to the respondent’s witness regarding the employment of the deceased Rattan Lal’s Wife, the mother of the claimant, but it is a matter of fact that in the rejoinder, wherein claimant’s counsel himself has stated that his mother was a retired employee. The best way to resolve the controversy, if he wants to raise to examine the mother itself in the witness box is taken that she was not retired or she has not employed anywhere at the time of death of her husband, but, here it has not been done so.

14. Therefore, it appears that the claimant attempted to secure benefits on compassionate grounds, even though the claimant was already married in 2002, the family owns a residential house, and the claimant’s mother is a retired employee. Consequently, the family cannot be deemed to be in a financial distress.

15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the claimant is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against the claimant and in favour of the management. Consequent thereto, issues no. 1 & 3 also go in favor of the management.

16. 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.

Date: 14.10.2026

ATUL KUMAR GARG

(Presiding Officer) CGIT-Cum- Labour Court-II