ANIL KUMAR vs DEFENCE on 26 October 2026

1. Union of India through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defense, 109 B, South Block, New Delhi.

2. Garrison Engineer (East), Lucknow Cantt, Lucknow.

3. The Chief Engineer (E 1 C(1)), HQ Central Command, Lucknow -

02. ...Respondents

By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

O R D E R (ORAL) PER HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A) In this case relating to the appointment on compassionate grounds, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:

a) To quash the orders dated 25.09.2023 and order dated 16.02.2022 passed by OP No. 2 contained in Annexure No.1 and Annexure No.2 respectively

b) To direct the opposite parties to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds under dying in harness rules.

c) Any other order and relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant’s father, who was working on the post of Carpenter under the respondents, died in harness on 19.10.2020, leaving behind his wife and two sons, including the applicant. The applicant moved an application dated

11.12.2020 for appointment on compassionate grounds. Having not received the respondents’ decision, he approached Hon’ble High Court in Writ-A No. 3532 of 2022 which came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2022 permitting the applicant to file fresh representation to the respondents and directing the respondents to decide it in accordance with law. 2.2 The applicant made a fresh representation dated 11.08.2022 to respondent no. 2 which came to be decided vide the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 stating that the applicant had secured 27 points while the last candidate approved for selection had secured 56 points. 2.3 The applicant again preferred application dated 27.05.2023 which was decided vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 stating that the applicant had secured 25 points while the last candidate approved for selection had secured 52 points. 2.4 Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant contends that his case has been rejected on technical grounds and there are several vacancies in other units, i.e., other than MES against which his claim should be considered.

4. The respondents aver that the applicant’s claim was considered by the Board of Officers (BOO) constituted by the Chief Engineer of Headquarters, Central Command, Lucknow in terms of the prescribed procedure, but it could not be recommended in view of the points secured by him and it was communicated that he can apply in the next year, if he so wishes, for consideration. 5.1 Heard both the parties.

5.2 Learned counsel for the applicant, through written submissions, has cited inter alia the judgment and order of Hon’ble High Court in Writ-A No. 7587 of 2006 Safkatullah Khan vs Food Corporation of India New Delhi & Ors in which paragraph 7(f) of the Circular dated 09.10.1998 issued by Government of India has been quoted which provides that if sufficient vacancies are not available in any particular office to accommodate the persons in the waiting list for compassionate appointment, it is open to the administrative Ministry/ Department/Offices to take up the matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of Government of India to provide at an early date appointment on compassionate grounds to those in the waiting list. 5.3 Learned counsel for the respondents, through MA No. 2568-2569 of 2026, highlights that paragraph 7(f) of the office memorandum dated 09.10.1998 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) has been withdrawn and modified vide DoPT’s OM dated 22.06.2001. 6.1 Perusal of DoPT’s OM dated 22.06.2001 reveals the following position: “Subject: Compassionate Appointment – Recommendation by the Committee limited to availability of vacancy. The undersigned is directed to refer to paragraph 7(f) of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum (OM) No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated October 9, 1998 read with OM No. 14014/23/99-Estt(D) dated December 3, 1999 on the subject above and to say that the matter has been further examined. Generally, it is seen that in view of the 5% ceiling prescribed for compassionate appointment under the extant instructions, there are not enough vacancies to accommodate even requests for compassionate appointment from family members of Government servants belonging to the same Ministry/Department/Office. Consequently, there are no spare vacancies left to accommodate requests from other Ministries/Departments/Offices for such appointment. Therefore, while no useful purpose is being served by taking up the matter with other Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India to consider such other cases received by them from other Ministries/Departments/Offices for compassionate appointment, it on the other hand only gives false hope to the applicants as grant of such appointment by other Ministries etc. cannot be guaranteed. It has, therefore, been decided that in future the Committee prescribed in paragraph 12 of Office Memorandum dated October 9, 1998 for considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds should take into account the position regarding availability of vacancy for such appointment and it should limit its recommendation to appointment on compassionate grounds only in a really deserving case and only if vacancy meant for appointment on compassionate grounds will be available within a year in the concerned Ministry/Department/Office, that too within the ceiling of 5% of vacancies falling under DR quota in any Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ post prescribed in this regard in para 7(b) of Office Memorandum dated October 9, 1998 referred to above.”

It is evident from the above that the stipulation under paragraph 7(f) of DoPT’s OM dated 09.10.1998 was superseded through OM dated 22.06.2001. It is further noted that consolidated guidelines on scheme for compassionate appointments brought out by DoPT vide OM dated 02.08.2022 incorporate in paragraph 7(e) the instructions issued vide OM dated 22.06.2001. 6.2 The prescription of time limit for considering applications for compassionate appointment has been reviewed by DoPT vide O.M No.14014/3/2011Estt.(D) dated 26.07.2012 in view of the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad judgment dated 07.05.2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010. Subject to availability of a vacancy and instructions on the subject issued by DoPT from time to time, any application for compassionate appointment is to be considered without any time limit and decision taken on merit in each case. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of OM dated 26.07.2012 are extracted below:

“3. Subsequently vide this Department’s O.M. No. 14014/19/2002- Estt (D) dated 5th May, 2003 a time limit of three years was prescribed for considering cases of compassionate appointment. Keeping in view the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad judgment dated 07.05.2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010, the issue has been re-examined in consultation with Ministry of Law. It has been decided to withdraw the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 05.05.2003.

4. The cases of compassionate appointment may be regulated in terms of instructions issued vide O.M. dated 09.10.1988 as amended from time to time. The onus of examining the penurious condition of the dependent family will rest with the authority making compassionate appointment.”

6.3 Having taken note of the scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Government, it is observed that the condition of deceased employee’s family may undergo change with time. The field comprising candidates applying for consideration for compassionate appointment may also change over time. The vacancies available against the quota of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies each year may vary. These factors may diminish or brighten the prospects of a candidate for compassionate appointment. 6.4 It is noted that the case of the applicant has been considered on merits by the BOO twice. It cannot be said that the applicant has not been diligently pursuing his case. It would be unjust to shut the door on a family praying for consideration of their case without examining afresh the relative merit of the applicant’s claim by the respondents. 6.5 Finally, it is observed that the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 also leaves the door open for such consideration in the following terms:

“6. You may again apply for employment under compassionate appointment scheme in the next yearly board, if you wish to. Submission of fresh application along with requisite documents through concerned dependent unit is a must for consideration of your case in the next yearly board.” (emphasis supplied) 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is disposed of by granting liberty to the applicant to prefer a fresh application for appointment on compassionate grounds to the respondents/competent authority within two weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order and the respondents/competent authority are directed to consider the applicant’s application so submitted on merits through the Board of Officers and decide his case by way of a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the applicant’s fresh application. It is made clear that no observation is made on the merits of the applicant’s case. 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