RAJ KUMARI DEVI vs BSNL on 11 November 2026

O R D E R

Per : Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A) :- This Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicants praying for following relief:- “8.1 The impugned order dated 01.06.2022 as contained in Annexure-A/1 to this application passed by the respondent no.3 is fit to be set aside and quashed. 8.2 After setting aside the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 as contained in Annexure-A/1 to this application, the respondents may be directed to consider and appoint the applicant no.2 on compassionate ground in the facts and circumstances as stated above. 8.3 Any other relief or reliefs may be granted to the applicants to which he is found entitled to. 8.4 The cost of litigation may be awarded in favour of the applicants.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants, are discussed and delineated as under:- 2.1 Late Laxmi Rajak was a Group ‘D’ employee in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, BSNL), Bihar Circle, Patna, who died in harness on 05.06.2006. The applicant no.1 filed an application for compassionate appointment in favour of applicant no.2 in the year 2006 itself and thereafter also she submitted certain necessary documents demanded by the respondents in support of her claim for compassionate appointment. 2.2 The case of applicants remained pending at respondents’ level for almost ten years and they rejected the case of compassionate appointment of the applicant no.2 vide their order dated 17.01.2017

JHA

Location:

S K JHA

[3] OA 965 of 2022

(Annexure-A/11) keeping in view the assets, limited liabilities and overall assessment of the financial condition of the family of deceased official and weightage points earned by the applicant i.e. less than 55 points. The Circle High Power Committee (for short, CHPC) did not consider the family to be living in penury/indigent condition and recommended for rejection of the request under provisions of the scheme. 2.3 The applicants moved this Bench of the Tribunal through OA No. 323 of 2017 which was disposed of on 23.04.2019. The Bench, being convinced with the speaking order dated 17.01.2017, decided to not interfere with the impugned order and disposed of the OA giving liberty to the applicants to apply again with current details, if they are still living in indigent conditions. The respondent authorities were directed to consider their case under the rules, against the vacancies available for such compassionate appointment in the year of application if, following their weightage point system, there are no other persons more eligible that the applicants. 2.4 The applicants represented afresh to the respondents on 13.05.2019 as per the Tribunal’s order dated 23.04.2019 which was finally rejected by the respondents on the ground vide their letter dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure-A/14) that there was a ban for three years on compassionate appointment as per order of BSNL, Head Office, New Delhi’s letter No. 273-18/2013/CGA/Estt.IV, dated 09.04.2019.

JHA

Location:

S K JHA

[4] OA 965 of 2022

2.5 The applicants challenged the order dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure-A/14) before this Tribunal through OA No. 63 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2021 with the direction to the respondents authority to consider the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with the existing rules within three months and if he meets requisite parameters, issue appointment offer or defer the issuance of appointment offer till the conducive situation arises. 2.6 The applicant no.2 thereafter made a representation dt. 19.04.2021 before the Chief General Manager (Telecom), BSNL, Bihar Circle, Patna, for grant of compassionate appointment. However, that representation was rejected vide speaking order dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1) keeping in view the assets, limited liabilities and overall assessment of the financial condition of the family of deceased official as assessed by the CHPC in the light of the weightage point system introduced vide no. 273-18/2005-Pers.iv, dated 27.06.2007 and the weightage point earned by the applicant i.e. less than 55 points. The Committee did not consider the family to be living in penury/indigent condition and recommended for rejection of the request under provisions of the Scheme. 2.7 Being aggrieved, the applicant has moved this Tribunal in the third round of litigation with the present OA praying for the relief as mentioned at para – 1 above.

3. Per contra, case of the respondents is that the applicant submitted his CGA application complete in all respect on 17.03.2016

JHA

Location:

S K JHA

[5] OA 965 of 2022

and then his CGA application was put up before CHPC on 21.03.2016 for considering his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. But, applicant’s said claim for CGA was rejected by the authorities concerned vide order dated 17.01.2017 which was challenged by the applicant before this Hon’ble Tribunal, which upheld the order passed by the respondent authorities concerned. Liberty was given to the applicant by this Hon’ble Tribunal to apply again with current details, if they are still living in indigent conditions. It has been further directed/observed by the Hon’ble Tribunal that the respondent authority will consider their case under the rules, against the vacancies available for such compassionate appointment in the year of application. Hence, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case of the applicant is not fit to be considered for the vacancies of the year 2006-2007.

Respondents have further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has been pleased to hold that the appointment on compassionate basis is an exception to the general rule for appointment by an open invitation. The exception has to be resorted to only when the candidate and his family is in penury so as to provide immediate aid to on the death of the employee in harness. The appointment of a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested right and that it is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of the Scheme applicable at the relevant point of time, he/she should be considered for compassionate appointment.

JHA

Location:

S K JHA

[6] OA 965 of 2022

4. The applicants contend that their claim has been lingering since 2006 and that they continue to face severe financial hardship. They argue that the repeated rejections on weightage points do not humanely or dynamically reflect their protracted financial distress following the loss of their breadwinner. In support of his contention the learned Senior Advocate has referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Patna, in CWJC No. 9464 of 2007, in the case of Sunaina Devi & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors., wherein the authorities were directed to consider the case of petitioner no.2 on all relevant parameters including the fact that apparently he and his family had suffered extreme difficulty because of death of his father due to cancer.

5. Conversely, the respondents assert that the proper procedure has been strictly adhered to. They state that the complete application was processed and placed before the CHPC. The claim was consistently rejected because the family’s structural assets, minimal liabilities and financial standing did not reflect indigence. Under the standard weightage guidelines dated 27.06.2007, the applicant scored below the mandatory 55- point benchmark.

The respondents further highlight that the initial rejection in 2017 was already validated by this Tribunal in OA No. 323 of 2017. The subsequent liberty granted was for consideration against vacancies of the fresh application year, rendering the applicant’s claim for original 2006-2007 vacancies legally untenable. They place reliance on settled law from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, emphasizing

JHA

Location:

S K JHA

[7] OA 965 of 2022

that compassionate appointment is an exception to Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution, aimed solely at mitigating immediate financial crises, and cannot be claimed as a vested right or a permanent source of regular recruitment.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties, evaluated the records carefully; and considered the matter in its entirety.

7. The core objective of providing an appointment on compassionate grounds is to rescue a deceased employee’s family from sudden financial ruin occurring right after the death of the breadwinner. In this case, the employee passed away in 2006. We are now in 2026 – two decades past the tragic event.

8. It is well settled law, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments (including Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Pampa Kumari and Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Odisha), that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or as an alternate line of hereditary succession. The fact that the family has survived for twenty years outside of public employment fundamentally dilutes the legal argument that an immediate emergency or penurious crisis exists.

9. Furthermore, this Tribunal in the first round of litigation (OA 323 of 2017) upheld the validity of the respondents’ assessment framework. Thereafter, the respondents have followed the specific directives issued by this Tribunal in OA No. 63 of 2021 by issuing a detailed, comprehensive speaking order. The CHPC evaluated the

JHA

Location:

S K JHA

[8] OA 965 of 2022

updated financial data and arrived at a clear conclusion that the family does not meet the established indigent parameters.

10. Finding no legal infirmity, arbitrariness, or procedural deviation in the impugned speaking order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the respondent authorities, this Tribunal does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents. The applicant has been granted ample opportunities to present his case that has been considered and disposed of as per rules establishing the fact that there is no violation of the principle of natural justice.

This Original Application is, accordingly, dismissed as devoid of merit.

11. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (Kumar Rajesh Chandra) Member (A)

skjha

JHA

Location:

S K JHA