Ashwani Kaushal vs GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA on 30 October 2026

1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines and Minerals, 3rd Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, North Region, Sector-E, Aliganj, Lucknow.

3. The Director, Geological Survey of India, North Region, Sector-E, Aliganj, Lucknow. …..Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to compassionate appointment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:-

To quash the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 (which has communicated vide letter dated 27.08.2025) passed by opp. parties contained as Annexure No. 1.

Issue direction to the opp. parties reconsider the matter of the applicant for compassionate appointment and grant him appointment on compassionate ground.

Any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem just, fit and proper on merit of the case.

Allow the petition with cost.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant’s father was working as Senior Surveyor under the respondents and he died in harness on 18.10.2014 leaving behind his wife, one daughter and two sons,

including the applicant. The applicant’s mother applied for the applicant’s appointment on compassionate grounds, but it was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 02.08.2022. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant states that he suffers from 100% disability and that he repeatedly submitted applications for appointment on compassionate grounds, but he was informed vide letter dated 27.08.2025 that his candidature had been rejected vide letter dated 02.08.2022. He contends that his candidature has been arbitrarily rejected without disclosing to him the method of allocating points.

4. The respondents state that the applicant’s case was placed before the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) in successive vacancy years (2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018 and 2019) on five permissible occasions along with other eligible candidates and it was assessed in accordance with the prescribed internal rules and regulations dated 04.06.2015, but it could not be recommended by CAC due to higher merit points secured by other candidates. They state that in the similarly situated case in Writ-A No. 8092 of 2024 Union of India vs Jai Prakash Gupta, Hon’ble High Court had set aside this Tribunal’s order directing the respondents to consider the case beyond five occasions.

5. Heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the applicant’s case by not disclosing the method and the break up of merit points secured by him. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterates the submissions made in the counter affidavit highlighting Jai Prakash Gupta (supra).

6.1 Perusal of the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 reveals that the applicant’s case was considered by CAC on five occasions with the following assessment: S. No. CAC Year No. of vacancies Points awarded to the last selected candidate Points awarded to the applicant

2014-15

Form not submitted

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

(emphasis supplied) It is noted that on each of the five occasions, i.e., 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018 and 2019, the merit points awarded to the applicant were significantly below the merit points awarded to the last recommended candidate. 6.2 The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the break up of the merit points has not been disclosed to the applicant does not carry weight at this stage and appears to be an afterthought for the reason that even though the applicant’s mother had preferred application for his appointment on compassionate grounds on 27.04.2015 and the applicant also subsequently applied several times in response to directions issued by the respondents, no effort was made by him to seek the result of his applications either through representations or through the Right to Information Act, 2005. Further, no specific ground has been canvassed by the applicant to demonstrate how prejudice was caused to him in the manner of evaluation of his application by CAC even though the respondents have enclosed the extant guidelines dated 04.06.2015 in their counter affidavit.

6.3 The object of the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds is to grant such appointment to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency [Paragraph 1 of DOPT O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 09.10.1998]. It is observed that the emergent need of the family is manifested in the diligence with which the family pursue the case for compassionate appointment with the authorities concerned and in seeking legal remedy, if required. Unexplained delay on part of the family to pursue the case for compassionate appointment can be fatal to their claim. The door for compassionate appointment cannot be kept open indefinitely if the family of the deceased employee display a lack of urgency in pursuing their case. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the following observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of their judgment dated 03.03.2023 in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) while discussing Malaya Nanda Sethy vs State of Orissa AIR 2022 SC 2836: “11… As noted in the said case, the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the applications are processed by the concerned authorities but also in the conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and if needed before the Courts.” (emphasis supplied) It is observed that the last application made by the applicant was on 25.06.2021, but the applicant took no action to find out the fate of his application and he sent a reminder belatedly on 10.02.2025 in response to which the respondents supplied a copy of the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 which had been addressed to him. Having slept over the matter for more than three years, it is not open for the applicant to seek

reopening of recommendations of CAC at this belated stage when the process is over. 6.4 Finally, it is noted that in the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 it is stated that the instructions dated 04.06.2015 and dated 15.10.2019 of Geological Survey of India, Headquarter Office, provide for consideration of a case for appointment on compassionate grounds by CAC for five times only and that the applicant’s case is ineligible for consideration in excess of five occasions. The instructions dated 04.06.2015 and 15.10.2019 are not under challenge. In this respect also, the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to Jai Prakash Gupta (supra) and do not favour the applicant. 6.5 In conclusion, the applicant is not entitled to any relief. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit. 7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A)

Warij Warij Yadav Digitally signed by Warij Yadav