SRI BALAJI SAI ASHISH vs EMPLOYEES PROVIDEND FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO) on 12 November 2026

ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member (Admn)

By this OA, the applicant has sought the following relief: “......to call for records relating to and connected with proceedings No. ACC(AP)/ZO(VJA)/Compassionate Appt/, dt.11.08.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent in rejecting application for compassionate appointment that the 1st applicant has not scored a requisite 50 points, scored only 36 points out of 100 points scale and by proceedings No.RO/GNT/HRM/Compassionate Appt/2023/50, dt. 15.09.2023 communicating the minutes of the Zonal Screening Committee dt.30.05.2023 and to declare the same as arbitrary, illegal and colourable exercise of power and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from the objective of the appointments on the compassionate grounds, and to quash and set aside the same, and to issue a consequential direction directing the Respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment under compassionate grounds forthwith,....”

Brief facts of the case, are as follows: 2.1 The 1st applicant is the son of the 2nd applicant, who is the wife of late Balaji Satyanarayana, who worked as Section Supervisor for nearly about 30 years in the 2nd Respondent organization. Late Balaji Satyanarayana died in harness on account of cardiac arrest on 14.05.2019, with 3 years of left over service. The 4th Respondent granted family pension to the 2nd applicant on 01.07.2019.

2.2 Immediately after the death of her husband, the 2nd applicant had submitted an application to the 4th Respondent, on 07.08.2019, with a request to provide appointment to her son, i.e., the 1st applicant, along with a No Objection Letter from her daughter (Ann. A-3). The 4th Respondent, vide proceedings, dt.19.08.2019, advised the 2nd applicant to submit a fresh application along with certain documents. As advised, the 2nd applicant submitted an application on 28.11.2019 with all the required documents.

2.3 The 4th Respondent deputed the Enforcement Officer (EO), Regional Office (RO), Guntur, to verify the originals of the caste certificate and

ESURU

educational qualification certificates, etc. It is alleged that the EO, without visiting the residence of the 2nd applicant and without enquiring in the locality, had called the 2nd applicant over phone to the office and enquired about the certificates and the other details, and submitted a report to the Asst. PF Commissioner (HRM) EPFO, RO, Guntur, on 01.09.2020, wherein the EO has given all the details including the assets and liabilities. The 4th Respondent, vide proceedings, dt. 07.12.2020, directed the 1st applicant to attend an interview/ skill test along with all original certificates on 11.12.2020. Accordingly, the 1st applicant appeared for interview.

2.4 While so, the 2nd applicant informed the 4th Respondent that the 1st applicant will complete his graduation (BBA) by April, 2022, and, made a request to give him employment after completion of his graduation. In response, the 4th Respondent, by letter, dt.30.12.2020, conveyed the advice of the Competent Authority to submit an application along with the necessary documents after completion of graduation of the 1st applicant. Accordingly, the applicants, after completion of Graduation of the 1st applicant, submitted applications, dt. 15.07.2022 and 30.08.2022, for compassionate ground appointment. However, the 4th Respondent rejected the same, vide proceedings, dt. 04/17.10.2022, on the ground that the applicant had scored only 43 points on the 100 point scale prescribed for compassionate appointment.

2.5 The 2nd applicant submitted an application to the 3rd Respondent on 27.10.2022, stating that she belongs to the ST (Sugali), and her daughter suffers from Addison’s and milo disease with frequent seizures and requires constant assistance. It was further stated that there are no financial sources

ESURU

to the family for leading a meaningful life, and again requested to provide appointment to the 1st applicant. Once again, verification was done and by proceedings, dt.08.05.2023, the 1st applicant was called to attend interview to be held on 11.05.2023. Accordingly, the 1st applicant attended the said interview. However, the 4th Respondent, by letter, dt.21.06.2023, communicated the Zonal Officer proceedings, vide No.ACC(AP)/ ZO (VJA)/Compassionate Appt, dt.15.06.2023, issued by the 3rd Respondent, wherein, the case of the 1st applicant was rejected holding that the family of the deceased did not face penurious condition/ destitution.

2.6 The 2nd applicant, once again, submitted a representation to the 3rd Respondent requesting to reconsider their application for appointment on compassionate grounds, which was rejected by the proceedings, dt.11.08.2023, of the 3rd Respondent, stating that the requisite 50 Points on the 100 point scale had not been scored, as per the parameters prescribed in the Head Office Circular, dt.29.06.2018. The 3rd Respondent also communicated the Minutes of the Zonal Screening Committee Meeting of 30.05.2023, vide proceedings, dt.15.09.2023, wherein the Zonal Screening Committee had rejected the ground of destitution in the family. Hence, the OA.

3.1 Opposing the grant of relief sought by the applicants, Respondents have filed their Reply Statement. Facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are not disputed by the respondents. It is stated that the 1st applicant submitted a fresh application, on 30.08.2022, after completion of his graduation, along with supporting documents, for appointment on

ESURU

compassionate grounds. The RO, Guntur, vide letter, dt.4/17.10.2022, inadvertently rejected the said application at their end itself, without forwarding the same to the competent authority, i.e., the Addl. Central P.F. Commissioner of the Zone. As per the guidelines, dt.23.07.2020, issued by the Head Office, an application for CGA from an eligible dependent family member of an employee, who dies in harness, with the report of the Welfare Officer, should be forwarded to the Zonal Office by the Regional Office along with specific recommendations of the RPFC-in-charge of the Region, whereupon, the request for appointment should be considered by the Zonal Screening Committee (ZSC) consisting of at least three officers - one Chairman and two Members, of the stipulated rank. The Zonal Screening Committee (ZSC) shall verify the eligibility of the applicant. Recommendations of the ZSC should be placed before the Cadre Controlling Authority, who shall take a decision, after due examination of the recommendations of the Committee.

3.2 It is further submitted that the Zonal Office (AP), Vijayawada, vide mail, dt.14.02.2023, directed the R.O., Guntur, to submit a comprehensive report to the Zonal Office for placing the same before the ZSC. Accordingly, RO, Guntur, forwarded a comprehensive report along with the interview report of the applicant to the Zonal Office (AP), Vijayawada. The ZSC, in its meeting, held on 30.05.2023, considered the application of the applicants and recommended to reject the same as the applicant had secured only 36 points on the 100 Relative Merit Points Scale.

3.3 It is further submitted that, as per clause 5 (f) of the EPFO Head Office Guidelines, dt.23.07.2020, the request for compassionate

ESURU

appointment has to be considered only if the applicant scores at least 50 points on the 100-point scale. As the applicant scored less than 50 points, the cadre controlling authority, i.e., the Addl. Central P.F. Commissioner, Zonal Office (AP), Vijayawada, accepted the recommendations of the ZSC and rejected the request of the applicant, vide letter, dt.15.06.2023. Against the said rejection, the applicant submitted a representation, dt.28.06.2023, and the representation was forwarded by the RO, Guntur, to the Zonal Office, Vijayawada, which, in turn, disposed of the same. Further, the RO, Guntur, vide letter, dt.05.09.2023, forwarded the representation, dt.22.08.2023, in respect of the 1st applicant, requesting to forward the ZSC report and a copy of the Head Office Circular, dt. 29.06.2018, including Part-C, which has details and instructions to fill out the 100-point scale. In reply, the ZSC Report / recommendations, dt. 30.05.2023, along with a copy of the Head Office Circular, dt. 29.06.2018, was forwarded to the applicant.

3.4 Respondents have placed reliance on the judgment, dt.12.02.2020, of the Hon’ble High Court, Tripura in WP (C) No. 1286/2019, in support of their contention that any applicant, who secures less than 50 points, like the applicant herein, “shall be treated as non-indigent and his case would be rejected”. Respondents further submitted that, as per Part-C of the 100- Point Scale, circulated by the Head Office, vide its Circular, dt. 29.06.2018, and reiterated through the Circular, dt. 23.07.2020, there is no provision for allocating points based on the liabilities of the family of a deceased employee. It is submitted that points have been allocated to the applicant on

ESURU

the following 08 parameters, as prescribed by the Head Office, EPFO, in Part-C.

Part-C S No. PARAMETER POINTS ALLOCATED TO THE PARAMETER POINTS SCORED BY THE APPLICANT

1. Family Pension/Monthly amount received under National Pension Scheme

2. Terminal Benefits (DCRG, SPF, GIS, Leave Encashment, Pension Commutation)

3. Annual Income of earning members and income from property

4. Movable/Immovable property of family (including fixed deposit, Bank balance, etc but excluding the terminal benefits amount received)

5. Number of dependents

6. Number of unmarried daughters

7. Number of Minor Children

8. Left Over Service of the deceased employee

Total

It is submitted that the applicant has immovable property at Flat No. 211, White House Apartments, Kundala Road, Guntur, worth Rs.20,00,000. She received Rs.8,04,677/-, in all, towards insurance amount. Further, as per Sl. No.4 of the above Table of Reference for the allocation of points to various attributes based on the 100-Point Scale, as the value of moveable / immoveable property of family (including Fixed Deposit, Bank Balance etc., excluding the terminal benefits amount received) exceeds Rs.20 lakh, the applicant has been allocated ‘00’ points against the concerned parameter. Further, as the family of the applicant is drawing monthly pension of Rs.27,600 per month, which is between Rs.26501 and Rs.29000, the applicant has been assigned 4 points. It is, thus, submitted that the points awarded by the Respondents are in consonance with the applicable compassionate appointment guidelines.

ESURU

3.5 It is submitted that all the compassionate appointment applications are being dealt with, irrespective of the cause of death of the employee, as per the compassionate appointment guidelines issued by the Head Office, dt.23.07.2020. Further, the DoPT, vide OM No. 14014/02/2012-Estt. (D), dt. 16.01.2013, has directed that the rulings contained in the relevant judgments may also be kept in view while considering cases for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the judgments cited in the DoPT OM, dt. 16.01.2013, have been taken into consideration by the ZSC for assessing the application of the applicants for CGA.

3.6 Respondents relied upon the judgment, dt. May 4, 1994, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others [JT 1994(3) S.C. 525], wherein the following principles have been laid down: i. Only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate ground.

ii. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Offering compassionate appointment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant is legally impermissible.

3.7 Respondents also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, decided on 22.10.2021, in the case of Navendra Kumar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.1601 of 2012), wherein it was held as under :-

ESURU

We have discussed above in detail the case of the petitioner/appellant and the principles of law on compassionate appointment laid down by this Court and by Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are briefly summarized as under: - (a) A provision for compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle that there must be an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The exception to be constitutionally valid has to be carefully structured and implemented in order to confine compassionate appointment to only those situations which sub serve the basic object and purpose which is sought to be achieved; (b) The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased - employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without means of livelihood, it is an exception to the normal rule of public employment, it is a concession. The basic intention to grant compassionate appointment is that on the death of the employee, his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. It cannot be claimed by way of inheritance. Compassionate Appointment cannot be treated as a Bonanza. It is not disbursement of gift. It is not sympathy syndrome. It is meant to provide minimum relief for meeting immediate hardship to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis due to death of sole bread winner. If employer finds that financial arrangement made for family subsequent to death of the employee is adequate members of the family can not insist for compassionate appointment.

Xxx xxxx

(e) There is no general or vested right to compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Where such a provision is made in an administrative scheme or statutory rules, compassionate appointment must fall strictly within the scheme or, as the case may be, the rules; Xxx xxx (k) Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis.

ESURU

Thus, the Respondents submitted that the impugned Orders dt. 15.06.2023 and 11.08.2023, rejecting the claim of the applicants for Compassionate Appointment is in accordance with law and, therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for applicants has filed a Synopsis along with the following citations, in support of his case:

(i) State of West Bengal vs. Debhabrata Tiwari & Ors – (2025) 5 SCC

(ii) Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India – (2000) 6 SCC 493

(iii) Union of India & Anr. Vs. B. Kishore – (2011) 13 SCC 131

(iv) General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. Vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr – (2004) 7 SCC 271

(v) Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar – (2015) 7 SCC 412.

While reiterating the arguments in the OA, it is submitted that liabilities of the family have to be considered for deciding the request for CGA.

5. Having heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the records, we are of the view that there is no doubt that the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment is meant to provide immediate succour to the family of an employee, on his death. Such an appointment can be extended only under the departmental scheme. Even the citations produced by the learned counsel for the applicants overwhelmingly support this principle, as can be seen from the following:

ESURU

(i) In State of West Bengal vs. Debhabrata Tiwari & Ors (supra), it was held as under:

“55. Further, applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered in light of the policy holding the field on the date on which the application is filed.”

Xxx “57. The existence of a policy issued by the State Government is a sine quo non for making appointments on compassionate basis, vide Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra and SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi. The appointments must follow the stipulations made in the policy.”

(ii) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. B. Kishore (supra), it was held as under:

“5. On going through the judgment passed by the High Court, it is evident that it is based on a complete misconception about the scheme of compassionate appointments. Contrary to the High Court's observation, indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first pre- condition to bring the case under the scheme of "compassionate appointment". The very purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succour to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a state of destitution. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”

(iii) In General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. Vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr, (supra), it was held as under:

“9. On the basis of the criteria as recommended by the Indian Bank's Association and adopted by the appellant-Bank, it could not be said that the family of the late K.N. Tiwary had been left in "penury" or "without any means of livelihood". The particulars of their income have been noted in their application and it certainly could not be said on the basis thereof that the respondents were living hand to mouth. The Division Bench erred in diluting this criteria of penury to one of "not very well to do".

ESURU

6. Thus, it is clear that the Respondents have acted well within their rights under the Scheme in vogue. The purpose of the Scheme for extending immediate assistance to the family on compassionate grounds is defeated by the request made by the family themselves to hold back the appointment to applicant No.1, who is the son of the deceased employee from applicant No.2, Smt. V. Vani Sree. The entire argument of falling on hard days and need for immediate assistance comes to naught by making such a request for deferring the compassionate appointment even if the son of the deceased employee were to be found eligible at that point of time. In such a situation, alleging that there has been an error in the allocation of points on the 100 Point-Scale is unjustified. The Zonal Screening Committee has issued detailed Minutes, on 30.05.2023, considering all the facts with reference to case laws in Umesh Kumar Nagapal and M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu.

7. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the OA. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)

(MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER

/evr/

ESURU