RAJ BALA vs DEFENCE on 4 November 2026

1. Smt. Raj Bala, W/o Late Hav. Jagdish, Aged 64 Yrs, /Gp D R/o V & PO Chandi, Teh. Meham, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana-124514.

2. Sunil Kumar S/o Late Hav. Jagdish, Aged 37 Yrs, R/o V & PO Chandi, Teh. Meham, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana-124514.

... Applicants

(By Advocate : Shri U. Srivastava with Shri M.K. Gaur through VC and Shri Anoop Kumar) VERSUS

1. Union of India through, the Secretary, M/o Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011.

2. The Director General, Directorate General of Supplies & Transport, Quartermaster General's Branch, Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110105.

3. The Dy. Director (D) (Civ), O/o Directorate General of Supplies & Transport, Quartermaster General's Branch, Integrated Headquarters of MOD (Army), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110105. ... Respondents

(By Advocate : Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)

(ORDER) The applicants are the widow and son of Late Shri Jagdish, who passed away in harness on 30.06.1995 while performing his official duties as Havildar in the ASC (AT) Regiment, leaving the family in penurious and indigent conditions. Following the sudden demise of the breadwinner, the family received DCRG and family pension, and regarding compassionate appointment for Applicant No. 2, the department advised waiting until he attained the age of majority. After attaining majority and completing his Senior Secondary education, Applicant No. 2 applied for compassionate appointment in 2004, but his candidature for a military post at the Gaya ASC Centre was rejected on 16.01.2004 due to height requirements. The respondents subsequently informed the applicant No.1 vide letter dated 24.01.2008 that they would be notified when recruitment for the Haryana region commenced. Later, the respondents issued an order on 12.09.2013 stating that in accordance with DoP&T OM dated 26.07.2012, the three-year time limit for considering compassionate appointment had been withdrawn, meaning there is no time limit, and requested the unit to process the case on merits. Applicant No. 2's name was provisionally registered at serial number 1879, and he was considered by the Board of Officers for the year 2019, where he secured 26 out of 100 points and stood at serial number 48 in the merit list, but was not recommended because only vacancies were available under the 5% quota. The respondents informed the applicant vide letter dated 27.10.2020 that applications are to be considered without any time limit on merit and granted him liberty to apply afresh for the next board.

2. The respondents thereafter issued an order on 22.02.2021, served with a covering letter dated 24.03.2021, rejecting the request for compassionate appointment on the grounds that the applicant was considered twice and that the case lacked merit due to a lapse of more than 25 years since the employee's death. Aggrieved by the rejection, the applicant submitted an appeal via representation dated 18.11.2021 in terms of existing government instructions, which yielded no result, prompting the filing of the Original Application. The applicants are seeking the following relief(s) :- “(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their

Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter, in the interest of justice.

(b) Directing the respondents to consider and finalize the appeal of the applicant submitted in the shape of representation dt. 18.11.21 (Annexure A/1) addressing to the respondent no 2 requesting for compassionate appointment in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject with in some stipulated period.

(c) Allowing the O.A. of the applicants with all other consequential benefits and costs.

(d) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicants."

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that ignoring the request of the applicant in such a manner is contrary to the relevant rules and instructions existing on the subject as in terms of the new guidelines on compassionate appointment any application for compassionate appointment is to be considered without any time limit as per existing penury conditions of the applicants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order of the Tribunal in OA No.650/2023 titled Smt. Savitri & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors.

4. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Original Application is barred by limitation, delay, and laches since the employee died on 30.06.1995 and the Original Application was filed belatedly in October 2022, and relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling in Hukum Raj Khinvasra v. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 2100. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that recruitment to military posts requires strict adherence to physical fitness and selection tests, due to which the applicant was disqualified for military posts on account of lesser height. Compassionate appointment on non- military posts is granted strictly on merit based on a point-system parameter under DoP&T OMs dated 26.07.2012 and 16.01.2013, and Ministry of Defence guidelines dated 09.01.2018. The applicant No.2’s case was duly considered twice by Board of Officers in 2017–2018 under Registration Number 1773, where he secured 26 points and rank 38, and in 2019 under Registration Number 1879, where he secured 26 points and rank 48, but he was not recommended because his relative merit was low compared to the last selected candidates and available vacancies. The rejection of the applicant's request vide letter dated 24.03.2021 is fully in consonance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 SCC (4) 138 which establishes that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period since its entire object is to provide immediate relief from sudden financial destitution, and it is not a vested right. Furthermore, the representation dated 18.11.2021 submitted by the applicant was not traceable after making sincere efforts, hence, no action has been taken till date, though a suitable reply and detailed justification would be provided upon obtaining competent authority approval.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. After going through the records, the following questions arise for consideration:

(i) whether the Original Application is barred by limitation;

(ii) whether the rejection of the claim of Applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment vide order dated 22.02.2021, communicated under covering letter dated 24.03.2021, calls for interference; and

(iii) whether a direction for consideration of the representation dated 18.11.2021 ought to issue. Limitation

7. The grievance in the present Original Application is directed against the order dated 22.02.2021, which was communicated to the applicants under covering letter dated 24.03.2021. Under Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an application to the Tribunal is to be made within one year from the date on which the final order in terms of Section 20(2)(a) is made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its order dated 10.01.2022 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation prescribed under any general or special law in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and that the balance period of limitation would become available with effect from 01.03.2022. The cause of action in the present case arose within the excluded period. The period of one year, therefore, commenced only on 01.03.2022, and the Original Application, filed in October 2022, is within limitation.

8. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on Hukam Raj Khinvsara v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 284 : AIR 1997 SC 2100, is misplaced. That decision concerned an application for implementation of a final order of the Tribunal, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such an order is to be executed under Section 27 of the Act within one year from the date on which it becomes final. The question of limitation for an original application against an order rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment did not arise there. The contention of the respondents that the employee died in the year 1995 and the Original Application was filed in the year 2022 is not strictly speaking an issue of limitation under Section 21 of the Act; it raises a question as to whether the claim for compassionate appointment survives after such a lapse of time. That question goes to the merits of the case and has been considered below. The objection on the ground of limitation is, accordingly, rejected. The legal position

9. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointments in public service are made on merit through open competition. It is founded on the need to relieve the family of a deceased employee from immediate financial destitution, and is available only in terms of the scheme governing it. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment

cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

10. A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, in Tinku v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 867, dealt with the claim of a dependant who was seven years of age when his father died in harness in the year 1997, whose name had been entered in a register for minors, and who applied on attaining majority in the year 2008. Though the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case was in relation to the Government instructions dated 22.03.1999 where a minor dependent of a deceased government employee gets the benefit provided he/she attains age of majority within a period of three years from the date of death of the government employee, but lays down the spirit behind and the principles governing the scheme of compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Court held thus: “12. … 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.

15. The purpose, therefore, of such policies is to give immediate succour to the family. …”

11. In Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., 2025 INSC 184, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after collating the settled principles, observed as under on the effect of lapse of time: “27. Lapse of time could, however, be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly. A presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. However, what would be a reasonable time would largely depend on the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment under consideration. If any time limit has been prescribed for making an application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection.”

In the same judgment it was held that a dependant who was a minor on the date of death can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority only in rare cases, and that too if the scheme provides so.

“11.p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority.”

12. Where the scheme provides for evaluation of claims on a point-based merit system, the scope of interference is narrow. In Union of India v. Amrita Sinha, (2021) 20 SCC 695, which arose under the relative merit point system of the Ministry of Defence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “13. ... Absent a case of palpable arbitrariness, we are of the view that there was no reason for the High Court or the Tribunal to interfere with the evaluation which was conducted by the authorities in terms of the applicable guidelines. Moreover, we are clearly of the view that the grant of compassionate appointment would not be in accordance with the basic purpose and object of such a scheme.”

13. In Government of India v. P. Venkatesh, Civil Appeal No. 2425 of 2019, decided on 01.03.2019, which arose under the scheme as it stood after the Department of Personnel and Training withdrew the three-year time limit by O.M. dated 26.07.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved of successive directions to reconsider representations in a belated claim, observing: “These successive orders of Tribunal for re- consideration of the representation cannot obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the Tribunal for compassionate appointment over a decade after the death of the deceased employee. This „dispose of the representation‟ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice.”

Application to the facts

14. Late Shri Jagdish died in harness on 30.06.1995. The family received DCRG and has been in receipt of family pension since then. Applicant No. 2 was then a minor, and the department advised the family to wait till his attaining of majority. He applied in the year 2004 after completing his Senior Secondary education. His candidature for a military post was rejected for want of the prescribed height, and the claim for a non- military post was thereafter kept pending until the Department of Personnel and Training withdrew the three-year time limit by O.M. dated 26.07.2012, upon which the respondents, by order dated 12.09.2013, directed that the case be processed on merits. It is not in dispute that, after the time limit was withdrawn, the claim of Applicant No. 2 was in fact placed before the Board of Officers on two occasions.

15. The learned counsel for the applicants is right that the scheme, as it has stood since 26.07.2012, does not prescribe an outer time limit, and that the Ministry of Defence guidelines dated 09.01.2018 themselves contemplate the consideration of belated requests where the death occurred long ago. To that extent, lapse of time by itself is not a ground of rejection found in the scheme. The absence of a prescribed time limit, however, does not dispense with the requirement that the claim must establish indigence and must find a place within the 5% ceiling on the basis of relative merit. As observed in Canara Bank (supra), a presumption is legitimately drawn from belated claims that the family is not in immediate need, and the withdrawal of the time limit did not convert compassionate appointment into a right exercisable at any time in future.

16. On the merits of the evaluation, the record shows that Applicant No. 2 was considered by the Board of Officers in 2017-18 under Registration No. 1773, where he secured 26 points and was placed at rank 38, and again in 2019 under Registration No. 1879, where he secured 26 out of 100 points and was placed at serial number 48, against only 15 vacancies available within the 5% quota. No specific challenge has been laid to the points awarded under any parameter, nor has it been shown that the Board departed from the applicable guidelines. In the absence of any palpable arbitrariness, the relative evaluation made by the Board of Officers is not open to interference (Amrita Sinha (supra).

17. The respondents have also relied upon the circumstance that the claim had been considered twice. No instruction has been placed before me which limits the number of occasions on which a claim may be considered, and the respondents' own letter dated 27.10.2020 granted Applicant No. 2 liberty to apply afresh for the next Board. That reason, to the extent it is relied upon as an independent ground, does not find support in the scheme. The impugned decision, however, does not rest on that reason alone. It rests also on the relative merit of the claim and on the lapse of time, both of which are relevant and sufficient considerations.

18. More than thirty-one years have now passed since the death of the employee, and over two decades since Applicant No. 2 attained majority and first applied. The family has sustained itself throughout this period on the family pension and the terminal benefits. The object of compassionate appointment, namely to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner, no longer survives. The facts are materially similar to those in Tinku (supra), where a claim made on attaining majority eleven years after the death was held to have been rightly rejected. The communications issued by the respondents from time to time, including the letters dated 24.01.2008, 12.09.2013 and 27.10.2020, at most assured the applicants of consideration in accordance with the scheme; such consideration was in fact afforded, and those letters do not confer a right to appointment.

19. The decision in Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, (2007) 8 SCC 398, does not assist the applicants. There, the Tribunal and the High Court had proceeded on an erroneous factual premise, and the rejection of the claim was not shown to rest on any material. In the present case, the claim has been evaluated on two occasions under the point-based system on material which has not been questioned. The representation dated 18.11.2021

20. The principal relief sought is a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 18.11.2021. The respondents state that the representation could not be traced and that a reply would be furnished after obtaining the approval of the competent authority. The respondents have, however,

filed their reply on merits, and the entire record bearing on the claim has been examined above. A direction to decide the representation at this stage would only result in another round of litigation on a claim which, for the reasons recorded above, does not survive. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, declining to remit a belated claim, held: “37. We see no reason or purpose in now directing the State to reconsider its decision in the case of the respondent which would only result in another round of fruitless litigation.”

The same course commends itself here, consistently with P. Venkatesh (supra).

21. Before parting, it must be observed that the manner in which the claim was handled by the respondents is not satisfactory. The claim of Applicant No. 2 remained without a decision on merits from 2004 until the first Board in 2017-18, and the representation dated 18.11.2021 was not traced or answered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that claims for compassionate appointment must be decided with promptitude, preferably within six months of a complete application (Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, 2022 INSC 617). The respondents shall ensure that such claims are processed in the time-bound and transparent manner contemplated by the Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No. 43019/9/2019-Estt.(D) dated 23.08.2021. The dismissal of this Original Application shall not preclude the respondents from considering, in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions, any other financial or welfare assistance to which Applicant No. 1 may otherwise be entitled.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. All the pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Rajveer Singh Verma) Member (J)

„rk/py‟