SMT MANISHA MARUTI JADYAR vs CONTROLLER GENERAL PARENTS, DESIGN AND TRADE MARKS on 3 November 2026

ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

Applicants have filed this application for appointment on compassionate ground of applicant no. 2.

2. Facts leading to this application are that the deceased Maruti Gopal Jadyar was working as Multi- Tasking Staff (MTS) in the Department of Trademarks Registry, Mumbai. He passed away on 15th December, 2018.

2.1 Applicant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased Maruti Gopal Jadyar and applicant no. 2 is the son of applicant no. 1 and deceased Maruti Gopal Jadyar. Applicant no. 2 has acquired the degree in Bachelor in Engineering (B.E.). His age was 28 years at the time of death of his father.

2.2 Applicant no. 1 made representation dated 07th January, 2019 (Annexure- A-3) for appointment of applicant no. 2 on compassionate ground, in which it was stated that

Munarshi

3 OA No. 968/2022

the deceased has left behind him applicant no. 1, applicant no. 2 and unmarried daughter.

2.3 It is stated in the OA that applicant no. 1 received a letter dated 31st October, 2019 (Annexure- A-5) vide which it was informed to the applicant no. 1 that there was no vacancy available for appointment on compassionate ground and her request would be considered as per rule as and when vacancy would be available.

2.4 Since there was no communication from the respondents, applicant no. 1 once again wrote a letter dated 14th February,

(Annexure-A-6) requesting for appointment of applicant no. 2 on compassionate ground. Applicant no. 1 wrote letters dated 10th August, 2020, 26th November, 2020 and 25th February, 2021 (Annexure-A-7 colly) and also on 07th June, 2021 and 28th July, 2021 (Annexure-A-8).

2.5 The applicants further aver that recently they came to know that respondents have appointed the wife of one late Shri Anal Ravi Dhomane who had expired much later than the applicant no. 1’s husband. The case of

Munarshi

4 OA No. 968/2022

applicant no. 2 was not considered and the case of wife of late Shri Anal Ravi Dhomane (respondent no. 3) has been considered for which the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have offered no justification. Therefore, the applicants have filed this OA seeking following reliefs:- “(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of the case which led to the impugned act of the Respondents of denying appointment to Applicant No.2 on compassionate ground and in his place appointing another person i.e. the wife of LATE SHRI ANAL RAVI DHOMANE who was placed below Applicant No.2 and whose husband had expired after the Applicant No.1's husband and impugned order dated 08.08.2022 i.e. Annx. A1 and after going through the legality, propriety and constitutional validity be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2022 and accordingly order and direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant No.2 for appointment under compassionate ground.

(b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to Hold and declare that the impugned act of the Respondents to ignore the Applicant No.2's claim for compassionate appointment is illegal and wrong and accordingly direct the Respondents to consider and appoint the Applicant No.2 on an appropriate post in the Respondent Department.

(c) Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems it fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case may be passed.

(d) Costs of the Original Application may be provided for.”

3. Respondents filed their reply.

Munarshi

5 OA No. 968/2022

3.1 They contend that the respondents have to examine the financial conditions of the family of the deceased. They contend that the applicant was not the first in line or was not placed at serial no. 1. Shri Roshan Mishra had made request for compassionate appointment before the application of the petitioner vide application dated 12th September,

(Annexure-2). The appointment of respondent no. 2, Kanchan Dhomane was in accordance with the rules.

3.2 They further contend that in Trade Mark Registry, following posts in Group ‘C’ were vacant at the time of considering the application in direct recruitment quota:- Sr. No. Posts Vacancy Year-

Vacancy Year-

Vacancy Year-

Total Vacancy

Stenographer

LDC

MTS

Total

3.3 They contend that from the above chart, it could be seen that total 13 posts had fallen vacant in the year 2018. The vacancy in the year 2019 was 05 and in the year 2020, vacancy was 02. As per OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

6 OA No. 968/2022

(D) (existing scheme), the compassionate appointment can be made upto maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group ‘C’ post. Thus, the respondents had one vacancy by applying liberalized method of vacancies under 5% quota for compassionate appointment.

3.4 Application for appointment on compassionate grounds was considered in the light of instructions issued from time to time by the Department of Personnel and Training (Establishment Division) by a committee of officers consisting of three officers of the rank of Deputy Secretary/ Director in the Ministry, Department or equivalent rank in the case of attached and subordinate offices. The Committee of three members was constituted by the CGPDTM to screen the applications for the post of Group ‘C’ including MTS. The said committee processed the applications in terms of DoPT instructions issued vide its OM No.14014/2/2012-Estt.(D), as amended for time to time. The committee prepared a consolidated report which is reproduced hereunder in tabulated form:-

Munarshi

7 OA No. 968/2022

S. No Applicants Name Date of Birth Name of the deceased official and applicant’s relation with him/her Scored

Ms. Kanchan Anal Dhomane 19.09.1989 Lt. Anal Dhomane / Wife

Mr. TusharMaruti Jadyar 24.04.1992 Lt. Maruti Jadyar / Son

, Ms. Sunita 07.10.1976 Lt. Arun Kumar / Wife

Mr. Rajeev Kumar 02.10.1991 U. Yogesh Kumar / Son

Ms. Anjali Jaiswal 15.03.1994 LA. Birendra Jaiswal/ Wife

Ms. Shruti Shailesh Bore 03.05.1999 Lt. S U Bore/ Daughter

Mr. Yogesh Sambhaji Ghorpad 15.10.1992 Lt. S S Ghorpade/ Son

3.5 The respondents further averred that from this table, it can be seen that respondent no. 3 had achieved highest score amongst all the candidates. As per DoPT instructions, office can make compassionate appointment up to maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group ‘C’ posts. There were 20 posts vacant for direct recruitment quota in Group ‘C’. Therefore, the respondents could make appointment of only one candidate from the above mentioned candidates. Therefore, being the highest scorer, respondent no. 3 was appointed on compassionate grounds.

Munarshi

8 OA No. 968/2022

3.6 The respondents have devised their own point based merit system for assessing the merit of the claims of compassionate appointment vide Annexure-R-6. Application of applicant and respondent no. 3 were considered as per point based system in which following factors were considered:- i) Family Pension (Basic excluding DA and Allowances). ii) Lump sum Amount received by the family on the death of government servants. iii) Left over service of deceased in year. iv) Number of Dependents (No. of minor children and unmarried daughters). v) Monthly Income of all dependent as member of deceased family. vi) Movable/Immovable Property.

3.7 On the basis of these points, respondents found that the respondent no. 3 has secured 60 marks whereas applicant has scored 58 marks and, therefore, the applicant was not found entitled to compassionate appointment. They, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application.

Munarshi

9 OA No. 968/2022

4. Applicant filed his rejoinder in which he contends that applicant no. 2’s father died in the year 2018 and till the year 2022, the respondents did not conduct or hold any Annual Committee Meeting for grant of compassionate appointment even though the same is required to be done as per rules. He contends that the respondents have not followed the instructions at Annexure-A-3 i.e. the scheme for compassionate appointment under Central Government.

4.1 They further contend that no officer from the department ever visited the family of the deceased Maruti Gopal Jadyar at any point of time though the prescribed period is 30 days. In Para 14(9) of the Scheme for Compassionate appointment under Central Government, it is stated that the concerned committee may preferable meet once a year. In the present case, as per the own showing of the respondents, the committee did not meet from the year 2018 till the year 2022. The applicant was not informed anything with regard to their appointment for consideration of applicant no. 2 for compassionate appointment. The respondents did not provide the result of each round of

Munarshi

10 OA No. 968/2022

selection to the applicant. Thus, the entire para 14 of the Scheme has been violated.

4.2 They further contend that the form of the applicant placed at page no. 91 has been manipulated and fabricated inasmuch as at column III (a) (v) somebody has added the words “one home at hometown”. These words were not entered by the applicant no. 2 in his form.

4.3 They further contend that from the reply of the respondents, it is clear that in the year 2018, 2019 and 2020, there were 20 vacancies available and if the committee would have been constituted in the year 2019, then 18 vacancies were available. This shows that due to malice, the case of applicant no. 2 was not considered in the year 2019 and 2020. In the year 2022, 01 vacancy has been filled up with a person whose husband expired in the year 2021. In the year 2019, the vacancy position was 18 and 5% of which comes to 0.9 which means it has to be rounded to 1 which means 1 vacancy was available in the year 2019. In the year 2020 also, there were 20 vacancies, 5% of which comes to 1. Thus, if the case of the applicant no. 2 could

Munarshi

11 OA No. 968/2022

have been considered in the year 2020 itself, then the case of respondent no. 3 would not have been considered at all as her husband expired only in the year 2021. The respondents have not assigned any reason as to why the vacancy was not filled in the year 2020.

5. Respondents filed reply to rejoinder. In the reply to rejoinder, the respondents stated that in the year 2020, meeting was not held because of the unprecedented situation created due to Covid-19 pandemic. They further contend that the deceased employee had claimed LTC from the year 1994 until few months before his untimely demise. All the claims were for travel to hometown and the address of his hometown has been mentioned as ‘Kase Jadyarwadi Sanmeshwar Ratnagiri’ in various forms such as nomination for death cum retirement, gratuity, nomination for benefits under the Central Government Employees group Insurance. Therefore, from the records, it is clear that applicant has a hometown and it is for him to prove the contrary. Rest of the contents of the reply to rejoinder are the repetitions of the reply.

Munarshi

12 OA No. 968/2022

6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Walia and Ms. N.V. Masurkar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Nagrani, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Walia submitted that the deceased Maruti Gopal Jadyar expired on 15th December, 2018. The applicant immediately, applied for compassionate appointment. There was a vacancy in the year 2019 and also in the year 2020. He submitted that in the reply, the respondents have mentioned that there were 18 vacancies in the year 2019 and thus, the respondents have stated in the reply that there were 13 vacancies in the year 2018 and 05 vacancies in the year 2019, which means that there were 13 vacancies in the year 2018 and 05 vacancies in the year 2019, which means that there were one vacancy in the year 2019 because as per their own reply, there were 18 vacancies in the year 2019 and, therefore, 5% of 18 means 0.9 thus, rounded up to 1. Despite there being one vacancy, the respondents did not make any effort to fill it. In the year 2020 also, there were 20 vacancies which means there was one vacancy for compassionate

Munarshi

13 OA No. 968/2022

appointment. But the respondents did not make any effort to fill that vacancy. This vacancy was filled only after the death of husband of respondent no. 3. He submitted that neither any Welfare Inspector nor anyone from the respondents had visited the applicant’s house for ascertaining their eligibility for compassionate appointment. They have relied on the DoPT OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D). He submitted that the respondents have violated clause 14 of the scheme for compassionate appointment under Central Government that the committee did not meet once in a year for which no reasons are recorded. He submitted that this requirement is as per Clause 14(IX).

8. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Ms. Masurkar submitted that it is not mandatory for the committee to meet once every year. These directions are directory. She submitted that in the year 2020, the Committee could not meet as the entire world was gripped by Covid-19. She submitted that the applicants have a house at Kase Jadyarwadi Sanmeshwar, district Ratnagiri. The Committee was constituted via Office Memorandum CGPDTM- 11012(14)/1/2021 dated 28th June, 2021 and

Munarshi

14 OA No. 968/2022

since the inception the committee got on with its work. She has placed reliance on the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana, 1994 SCC (4) 138 in which it is held that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment. The Government has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the employee. She has also placed reliance on the case of General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. versus Anju Jain in Civil Appeal No. 5224 of 2008 (Supreme Court) for the same proposition and also on the case of The State of West Bengal versus Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Etc., 2023 Livelaw (SC) 175. She submitted that the applicant had scored 58 points whereas the respondent no. 3 had scored 60 points.

9. She submitted that there was only one vacancy and, therefore, the question of considering the applicant did not arise as he had scored lesser points than respondent no.

3. She has also placed reliance on the case of Mgb Gramin

Munarshi

15 OA No. 968/2022

Bank vs Chakrawarti Singh, AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3365.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submitted that there was only one vacancy and the respondents could fill only one vacancy having considered the points secured by each of the candidates. He further submitted that the applicant has not challenged the vacancy position.

11. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for their respective parties.

12. In the case of Chakrawarti Singh (supra), in para 5, it has been held thus:- “5. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must

Munarshi

16 OA No. 968/2022

possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right.

The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds.

Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.”

13. From this, it is clear that compassionate appointment is granted so as to provide immediate relief to meet the financial crisis on account of sad demise of the Government employee. It is also clear that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

14. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed heavy reliance on the vacancies which had been created in the year 2018, in the year 2019 and in the year 2020 but the respondents did not hold the meeting of the committee. He submitted that if the respondents had held the meeting in these aforesaid years, the applicant no. 2 could have been considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

15. It is true that from the chart prepared by the respondents which has been reproduced in para 3.2 of this

Munarshi

17 OA No. 968/2022

judgment, it can be seen that in the year 2019, there were 18 posts and 5% is earmarked for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the vacancy would have been 01. But the applicants were informed vide letter dated 31st October, 2019 that there was no vacancy available for appointment on compassionate ground.

16. The letter is dated 31st October, 2019. The applicants have not produced anything on record to show that all these vacancies had been occurred prior to 31st October, 2019. The vacancy will arise only on the death of the Government employee. In these circumstances, unless there is any record to show as to in which specific month, these vacancies had occurred, it cannot be said that 18 vacancies were available in the month of October, 2019. It is quite possible that all these 5 vacancies could have arisen only after 31st October, 2019. In these circumstances, I find that without these details, it cannot be said that one vacancy was available in the year 2019.

17. It is true that in the year 2020, there were 20 vacancies which means 01 vacancy was available for the

Munarshi

18 OA No. 968/2022

compassionate appointment. It is also true that no meeting was held in the year 2020. However, it is common knowledge that the entire world was gripped by the pandemic Covid-19. In these circumstances, no oblique motive can be attributed to the respondents for not holding the meeting in the year 2020.

18. Respondents have placed reliance on the Appendix to OM No. 43019/9/2019-Estt.(D) dated 23rd August, 2021. This Appendix outlines the procedure to be followed for appointment on compassionate grounds. Clause

13. (i) states that the Welfare Officer in each Ministry/Department/Office or a senior officer may be deputed to meet the family members of the deceased Government Servant and apprise them of the terminal benefits available to the family. This may be done at the earliest possible, preferably, within 30 days of death.

19. Sub clause (ii) of clause 13 states that in case, it is observed by the Welfare Officer/ Senior Officer that the condition of the family of the deceased Government Servant is indigent, the family should also be apprised of the scheme

Munarshi

19 OA No. 968/2022

for compassionate appointment. Sub clause (vi), (vii) and (x) to (xv) of the Scheme reads as under:- “vi) Some Departments such as CBIC, D/o Posts, D/o Defence have devised their own point based merit system, for processing claims for compassionate appointment. In order to bring in transparency and objectivity in dealing with such claims, all Ministries/Departments, who have not yet developed such a system, may do so by devising their own point based merit system for assessing the merit of the claims of compassionate appointments.

vii) While informing the Applicants of the registration number of their Application, they may also be informed ofthe likely number of vacancies likely to be available to be filled on compassionate grounds as well as be provided with a copy of the point based merit system.

xxx xxx

xxx

x) Prior to every meeting of the Committee, the Applicants whose applications are being considered, should be informed, through email or other forms of communication (including digital modes of communication), of the number of vacancies in each grade for which they are being considered as also the date the Committee is due to meet to consider their Application. However, the Applicant(s) would not be required to have any personal interaction, either with the Administration or the Committee and that the Applicants may not be asked to be present during the meeting of the Committee.

xi) Every valid application shall be assessed strictly on the basis of the point based merit system formulated by the concerned administrative Ministry/Department.

xii) The Committee should make its recommendation for appointment on compassionate ground as per the total points obtained by each Applicant, under the applicable point based merit system.

xiii) The result of each round of selection should be communicated to the Applicants. The points

Munarshi

20 OA No. 968/2022

awarded against each parameter alongwith total merit points earned, should be provided to the Applicants through email or other forms of communication.

xiv) The minutes of each meeting of the Committee including the merit points earned by each Applicant should also be placed, within a period of three weeks from the date of meeting of the Committee, in public domain on the website of the Ministry/Department/Organisation for information of all concerned.

xv) Recommendation of the Committee should be placed before the competent authority for a decision. If the competent authority disagrees with the committee's recommendation, the case may be referred to the next higher authority for a decision.”

20. It is true that from the reply of the respondents, it does not appear that welfare inspector had at any time, visited the family of the deceased i.e. the applicants. The respondents contend that they have devised their own point based merit system for assessing the merit of claims of compassionate appointment. However, the applicants have not challenged that the respondents no. 3 had not received 60 points or that the applicant has scored more points than 58 points.

21. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have alleged in their written statement that the applicants own a house at their hometown. The applicants have contended in

Munarshi

21 OA No. 968/2022

the rejoinder that in column III.(v), it has been written “one home at Hometown”. They contend that this was not written by the applicants. But it was written by someone else maliciously. It is pertinent to note that this document is filled by the applicants themselves. In their application, they have not alleged anywhere that the words “one home at Hometown” were not added by them but it was added by someone else maliciously. It is only when the respondents mentioned in their written statement that the applicants have a home at their hometown, the applicants have made these allegations in rejoinder. Simply making allegations is not enough. Those allegations have to be substantiated. The fact remains that the applicants own a house at hometown.

22. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants had sought compassionate appointment for applicant no. 2 i.e. son of the deceased employee whereas respondent no. 3 herself had sought the appointment and in compassionate appointment, wife has first preference. I find substance in her contention. The respondent no. 3 herself had applied for compassionate appointment and she got it being a wife and has scored 60 points.

Munarshi

22 OA No. 968/2022

23. This application cannot be allowed for one more reason. The applicants have added respondent no. 3 as a party. Respondent no. 3 is added as a party respondents as she was selected on compassionate ground. However, the applicants have not challenged her appointment. For the aforesaid reasons, application cannot be allowed. Hence, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

24. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.

(Justice M.G.Sewlikar)

Member (J)

nk.

Munarshi