Vijay Gautam alias Vijay vs NBRI on 6 November 2026

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi, Pincode-110016.

2. Director (General) CSIR National Botanical Research Institute, Ministry of Government of India, Anusandhan Bhawan, 2 Marg, New Delhi, Pincode-110001.

3. Director, CSIR National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap, Marg, P.B. No. 436, Lucknow, Pincode-226001.

4. Controller Administration, CSIR National Botanical Research Institute, (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research), Rana Pratap Marg, P.B. No. 436, Lucknow, Pincode-226001.

…..Respondents By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Dixit

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to appointment on compassionate grounds, the applicant has sought following reliefs: “(i) To issue/pass an order to set aside/quash the letter dated 23.08.2024 passed/issued by the respondent concerned, which is attached as Annexure No. 1 to this original application.

(ii) To issue any order or directions for directing the opposite parties to consider the applicant for service on the suitable post under dying in harness rules on compassionate ground in lieu of services rendered by his father Wanti Lal.

(iii) Issue any other order or directions which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case be also awarded to the petitioner against the opposite parties.

(iv) To award the cost of this petition to the petitioner against the opposite parties.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant’s father, Wanti Lal, died in harness on 15.08.2016 while working under the respondents, leaving behind his wife, four daughters and three sons, including the applicant. The applicant’s mother applied for the applicant’s appointment on compassionate grounds to the respondents on 09.12.2016. After some correspondence, when the respondents did not consider the applicant’s case, he approached this Tribunal in OA No. 217 of 2021 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 05.01.2024, directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s submissions made vide letter dated 12.07.2021 and affidavit dated 09.07.2021 and place it before the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC). The applicant’s case was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 23.08.2024 on the ground that the CAC had considered his case along with other cases in terms of 100 point scale of weightage but it was not recommended. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant contends that the he had completed all formalities but the respondents rejected his case stating that he had secured only 25 points in terms of CSIR guidelines dated 14.11.2022 which is illegal and arbitrary as the application for his appointment on compassionate grounds preceded the guidelines dated 14.11.2022.

4. The respondents submit that the consolidated instructions on the scheme for compassionate appointment entailing point based merit system have been circulated vide CSIR’s letter dated 14.11.2022. They also refer to the office memorandum (OM) dated 02.08.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) on the subject. They state that after the ban on recruitment was lifted on 27.02.2024, the applicant’s case considered by CAC in the meeting held on 30.07.2024

but it was not recommended because the applicant scored only 25 marks which has not been challenged by him.

5. Heard both the parties. 6.1 It is noted that the consolidated guidelines on scheme for compassionate appointments have been brought out by the Government of India vide DoPT’s OM dated 02.08.2022. The object of the scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency [Para 1 of DOPT O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 09.10.1998]. 6.2 It is further noted that prescription of time limit for considering applications for compassionate appointment has been reviewed vide DoPT’s OM dated 26.07.2012 in the following manner: “3. Subsequently vide this Department’s O.M. No. 14014/19/2002- Estt (D) dated 5th May, 2003 a time limit of three years was prescribed for considering cases of compassionate appointment. Keeping in view the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad judgment dated 07.05.2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010, the issue has been re-examined in consultation with Ministry of Law. It has been decided to withdraw the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 05.05.2003.

4. The cases of compassionate appointment may be regulated in terms of instructions issued vide O.M. dated 09.10.1998 as amended from time to time. The onus of examining the penurious condition of the dependent family will rest with the authority making compassionate appointment.” (emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above that subject to availability of a vacancy and instructions on the subject issued by DoPT from time to time, any application for compassionate appointment is to be considered without any time limit and decision taken on merit in each case.

6.3 It is observed that the condition of deceased employee’s family may undergo change with time. The field comprising candidates applying for consideration for compassionate appointment may change over time. The vacancies available each year may vary. These factors may diminish or improve the prospects of a candidate for compassionate appointment relative to the other competing claims. 6.4 From the material placed on record, it is evident that the applicant has pursued his case diligently since the initial application was made on 09.12.2016 but his case could be considered on merit only once by the respondents. It would be unjust to shut the door on the applicant’s claim who prays for consideration of his case by the respondents. 6.5 Coming to the applicant’s objection on application of CSIR’s guidelines dated 14.11.2022 in his case, it would be apposite to refer to N C Santosh vs The State of Karnataka AIR 2020 SC 1401 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “20. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependent of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is however disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.” (emphasis supplied) In view of the above position, the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in consideration of the applicant’s case by CAC in the year 2024 based on the CSIR’s guidelines dated 14.11.2022.

7.1 In view of the facts and circumstances above, this OA is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that the CAC shall reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground on merits and based on such consideration the respondents shall decide the case of the applicant by way of a reasoned and speaking order to be communicated to the applicant, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar)

Member (A)

Vidya Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.11.12 15:25:16 +05'30'