DEVESH KUMAR vs HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS on 2 November 2026

1. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT THROUGH SECRETARY NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL [CO-ORDINATION] NORTHERN REGION, CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EAST BLOCK-1, FLOOR-7, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066

3. SUPRITENDENT ENGINEER PRESIDENT'S ESTATE CIRCLE CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RASHTRAPATI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110004

… Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma)

SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

O R D E R (ORAL) The father of the applicant herein was working as a Beldar in the office of the Executive Engineer, President's Estate Circle, CPWD, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi. While in service, he unfortunately expired on 4th January, 2009, after completing approximately ten years of service, leaving behind four family members.

2. The applicant submitted an application dated 27th February, 2009, seeking compassionate appointment to the Deputy Secretary, President Secretariat in the Rashtrapati Bhavan. Thereafter, wife of deceased employee has submitted an application dated 21st May, 2009, seeking appointment for his son, was taken cognizance of by the respondents and unfortunately the applicant was unable to garner the requisite weightage points and on that ground applicant’s request for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2017.

3. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the applicant filed an O.A. No. 1002/2018, challenging the rejection order. The said OA was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 24th September, 2019. SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

4. Thereafter, the respondents had issued a notification in the year 2023 inviting applications for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the applicant also applied for compassionate appointment pursuant to the said notification. However, he was not appointed against any of the vacancies notified in the year 2023, as he had secured the lesser weightage points amongst the selected candidates. Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for compassionate appointment, the applicant has now filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs: “A. DIRECT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE APPLICANT FROM THE DATE WHEN OTHER CANDIDATE WHOSE RIGHT TO BE APPOINTED ACCRUED LATER, WAS APPOINTED AGAINST THE VACANT POSITION, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH APPOINTMENT; B. DIRECT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE APPLICANT FROM THE DATE WHEN OTHER CANDIDATE WHOSE RIGHT TO BE APPOINTED ACCRUED LATER, WAS APPOINTED AGAINST THE VACANT POSITION, WITH ALL CO SEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH APPOINTMENT; C. AWARD COMPENSATION TO THE APPLICANT FROM THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE ILLEGAL NON-APPOINTMENT OF THE APPLICANT AND THE MENTAL AND ECONOMIC AGONY FACED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE AMILY MEMBERS; D. ALLOW THE O.A. IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT;”

5. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, by applying under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, he obtained a reply dated 2nd April, 2024, from the respondents, which reveals that the respondents had applied the guidelines for compassionate appointment as SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

contained in DOPT OM No. A-14014/9/94-Estt. (D), dated 9th October, 1998.

6. He states that inasmuch as the respondents themselves have stated that they have adopted the criteria contained in the said DoP&T O.M., which does not speak about any weightage be assigned for such kind of compassionate appointment. The ground taken by the respondents in rejecting his case by applying the yardstick contained in the subsequent DoP&T OM No. page 7 of counter reply A- 12012/1/2013-Admn.IV dated 6th August, is incorrect.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the DoP&T O.M. dated 9th October, 1998, is the correct O.M. which ought to have been applied while considering his case for compassionate appointment, and not the subsequent DoP&T OM referred to above.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant also contends that, aggrieved by the rejection of his request, he had earlier filed OA No. 1002/2018, which came to be dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 24th September, 2019. The main ground for such rejection was that the Tribunal was not inclined to interfere with the SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

assessment of the respondents in applying weightage points, as the applicant did not possess sufficient weightage points entitling him for appointment on compassionate grounds.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant may be given a fair opportunity by the respondents by applying the correct DoP&T O.M. dated 09.10.1998, while deciding his eligibility for compassionate appointment.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the following judgments in that the applicant's claim ought to have been considered for grant of compassionate appointment:

i. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Malaya Nanda Shetty Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836, relevant paragraphs number 11, 12 and 16 to 18 of the judgment reads as under:- “11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

12. We have noted that there is a conflict of view, as to whether the scheme/rules in force on the date of death of the government servant would apply or the scheme/rules in force on the date of consideration of the application on compassionate grounds would apply. There are divergent views and the conflict of opinion in different decisions of this Court. However, keeping the said question aside, for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant herein shall be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as per the 1990 rules, which were applicable at the time when the deceased employee died and the SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

appellant herein made an application for appointment on the death of his father, i.e., in the year 2010. …..

16. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications.

17. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case.

18. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.”

ii. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank and Ors. vs. Promila and Anr. (2020) 2 SCC SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

729, relevant paragraphs number 18 and 19, are reproduced herein below:- “18. The question of applicability of any subsequent Scheme really does not apply in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank. Thus, it would not be appropriate to examine the case of the respondents in the context of subsequent Schemes, but only in the context of the Scheme of 4.4.1979, the terms of which continued to be applicable even as per the new Scheme of 5.11.1985, i.e. the Scheme applicable to the respondents. There is no provision in this Scheme for any ex gratia payment. The option of compassionate appointment was available only if the full amount of gratuity was not taken, something which was done. Thus, having taken the full amount of gratuity, the option of compassionate appointment really was not available to the respondents.

19. We may also notice that though the subsequent Schemes were not applicable, even if benefit was sought to be given of those Schemes, initial non-disclosure and subsequent disclosure by respondent No.1, of her employment and her emoluments would disentitle her under those Schemes, too. Thus, when the appellant was calling upon the respondents to apply under the subsequent Schemes, that could have been beneficial to the 2(supra) respondents only if they were entitled to any of the benefits under that Scheme. That could not happen because the benchmark provided in those subsequent Schemes took the emoluments of respondents beyond the prescribed limit, so as to disentitle them from both, compassionate employment and ex gratia payment.”

iii. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10SC 496, relevant paragraph 24, is reproduced herein below:- “23. We had the occasion of examining the issue of compassion appointment in a recent judgment in Indian Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr. We may usefully refer to paras 3, 4, & 5 as under: “3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme applicable and, thus, this Court directed the scheme prevalent, on the date of the death, to be placed before this Court for consideration, as the High Court appears to have dealt with a scheme which was of a subsequent SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

date. The need for this also arose on account of the legal position being settled by the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, qua what would be the cut-off date for application of such scheme.

4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that 4 (2020) 2 SCC 729 there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away…..”

iv. Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Ashish Awasthi, (2002) 2 SC 157 and particularly highlights paragraphs 5 and 6, which reads as under:-

5. As per the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.

6. In the case of Indian Bank and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) the very scheme applicable in the present case was under consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.”

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposes the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that during the first round of SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

litigation the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had gone into the merits of the case and rejected his claim for compassionate appointment.

12. The counsel for the respondents also states that such order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the applicant in higher Forum and thus had attained finality.

13. He also states that principle of res judicata would apply to the present case and that the applicant cannot be permitted to raise fresh grounds by filing separate O.As, which would only lead to multiple litigation on the same issues that have already been adjudicated and decided by the Courts.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents also draws the attention of the Bench to paragraph 8 of the DoP&T O.M. dated 9th October, 1998, which reads as under:- “8. Belated Requests for Compassionate Appointment (a) Ministries/Departments can consider requests for compassionate appointment even where the death or retirement on medical grounds of a Government servant took place long back, say five years or so. While considering such belated requests it should, however, be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the Government servant in order to relieve it from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

cases would call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision to make appointment on compassionate grounds in such eases may, therefore, be taken only at the level of the Secretary of the Department/Ministry concerned.

(b) Whether a request for compassionate appointment is belated or not may be decided with reference to the date of death or retirement on medical ground of a Government servant and not the age of the applicant at the time of consideration.”

15. Learned counsel for the respondents to buttress his arguments relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the matter of Smriti Verma Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, 2025 SCC Online Chh 11091, relevant paragraphs 6 to 9 of which, read as under: “6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record.

7. From the material available on record, it is manifest that at the time of death of the deceased employee on 09/12/2000, the petitioner was a minor and only after attaining the age of majority i.e. after one and a half decade, the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment. The provision of compassionate appointment is a way to provide immediate financial assistance to the families who have experienced a sudden hardship. The petitioner shall not be entitiled to appointment on compassionate ground after a numbers of years from the date of death of her deceased mother.

8. The supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 471 held at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under. "7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. 7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.

8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable."

9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the same is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court.”

16. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record with their assistance.

17. I agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents when he refers to paragraph 8 of the DoP&T O.M. dated 09.10.1998, regarding compassionate appointment, which provides that appointment is primarily intended to provide immediate succor to the bereaved surviving family members of the deceased government employee. SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

18. However, it is to be noted that the applicant, whose father had expired on 4th January, 2009, had immediately submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment in February, 2009 itself.

19. In the present case, the executive is best suited to know about the financial conditions of the applicant's family, including whether the family was in immediate financial distress or otherwise, falls within the domain of the executive and is not ordinarily a matter for judicial review. However, what is to be seen in judicial review in compassionate appointment is whether the rules and regulations governing compassionate appointment as extant at that point of time was applied correctly by the respondents or not. In this instant case, the respondents themselves by way a response to applicant’s RTI Application have admitted by the letter dated 02.04.2024 that they have applied the yardsticks contained in the DoP&T O.M. dated 09.10.1998 regarding the appointment request of the applicant. Whereas in reality they have adopted the yardsticks contained in the subsequent DoP&Ts O.M. dated 06.08.2018 for rejecting the request of the applicant, who had applied for the vacancy which arisen in the year 2023. SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

20. I find the judgment relied upon by the applicant quoted hereinabove in paragraph no. 11, make it quite clear that the rules and regulations which had existed at the time of the death of the applicant on 04.01.2009 only is applicable for deciding whether the person deserves compassionate appointment or not and having taken such a position in the RTI response given to the applicant, the respondents cannot now turn around and apply the yardsticks contained in a subsequent DoP&T O.M. which is not at all applicable to the applicant at the relevant point of time.

21. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in the matter of Smriti Verma Vs. State of Chhatisgarh may not be of much help to them, inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the said case are distinguishable from those of the present case. In the said case, the deceased employee had expired on 9th December, 2000, and the petitioner, being a minor at that time, had waited until one and a half decade for attaining the age of majority before seeking appointment. However, such is not the position in the present case, immediately after demise of the government servant the breadwinner of the family, the widow of the deceased employee had applied for compassionate appointment and it SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

was only due to administrative reasons that such request could not be immediately complied with as can be seen from the records and finally came to be rejected by applying the weightage points and stating that the applicant did not possess sufficient weightage points.

22. On the point of res judicata the applicant by way of filing his rejoinder had stated that the present O.A. is filed arising out of a fresh cause of action as the applicant had applied for the latest vacancy released by the respondents in the year 2023 and the applications for compassionate ground appointment that previously dealt by the respondents in accordance with the Schemes which were promulgative much after the death of the father of the applicant, whereas the scheme applicable at the time of the death of the employee, was DoP&T O.M. dated 09.10.1998 for compassionate appointment to the post of Beldar. He also states that vide response to his RTI application, he has found that two other employees namely Smt. Geeta Bharti, W/o Late Sh. Nirmal Kumar, who had expired on 31.01.2009 and Smt. Indravati, W/o Lath Sh. Ram Ujagar, who had expired on 24.06.2011, have selected by way of compassionate appointment for the post of Beldar whose family’s breadwinner had expired after the death of SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA

applicant’s father on 4th January, 2009, and that applicant should be granted a fair opportunity for consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment, by not disturbing the appointment of given to the other beneficiary under the provisions of compassionate ground appointment, particularly in view of the appointments granted to other similarly situated persons.

23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant by applying the yardsticks contained in the DoP&T O.M. dated 9th October, 1998, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

24. Accordingly, the present O.A. stands disposed of. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

[

(B. Anand)

Member (A)

/SG/

SHILPI GUPTA

SHILPI GUPTA