Case details

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal · Hyderabad Bench
Decided: 12 November 2026
Case number: O.A./643/2023
Type: Judgment

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Central Administrative Tribunal

V N Aravindan vs SECURITY PRINTING PRESS on 12 November 2026

Cites 4, Cited by 0

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD

OA/21/643/2023

Orders reserved on

:16.10.2026

Orders pronounced on

:12.11.2026

Hon’ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member Between:

1. V. N. Aravindan S/o VN Rajaji(late), Aged 34yrs, Occ; Nil, R/o 3-3-76-78/1, Chaitanya Villas Colony, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

2. V. Amala, W/o. Late V.N. Rajaji, Aged about 54 years, R/o 3-3-76-78/1, Chaitanya Villas Colony, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

….Applicants

(By Advocate: Mrs. K. Indra Golda)

And

1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Economic Affairs, (Coinage and Currency Division), Ministry of Finance, Room No 70-C, North Block, New Delhi.

2. The General Manager, Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd., (wholly owned by Government of India), Mint Compound, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500063.

3. The Chairman & Managing Director, Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd, 16th floor, Jawahar Vayapar Bhawan, Janapath, New Delhi-110001.

4. The Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances &

Pensions, Department of Personal & Training, Union of India, Rep by its Deputy Secretary, Re-training & Re-deployment, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003.

5. Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs, Rep by its Director, HUDCO Vishala building, Bhikaji Kama Palace, New Delhi.

...Respondents

(By Advocates: Mrs. B. Gayatri Varma, Sr. PC for CG)

e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=dsatyanarayana74@gmail.com, CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA

Location:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

(As per Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member)

By this OA, the applicants have sought the following relief:

“To declare the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the Applicants’ claim made for Compassionate appointment since the 2012 after the demise of the first applicant’s father while on the duty on 25-1-2011, despite receiving all the concerned documents and forms from the applicants in this behalf and further the respondents communicating the Applicants, vide letters dated 6.2.2021 & 15.4.2021 that their action on his claim is still awaited as arbitrary, unfair, improper, unjust, dereliction and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondent to expedite take the decision on the applicants’ request of compassionate appointment by ordering the respondents to give appointment to the first applicant under compassionate grounds as he was entitled for the said benefit in any manner.”

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicants, are that the first applicant is the son of the deceased employee of the 2nd respondent which was erstwhile called as India Government Mint, Hyderabad. The first applicant’s father on 21-1-2011, while discharging his duties, reported breathlessness and comfortless in chest and thereby he was brought to hospital related to the 2nd respondent on emergency basis and the said hospital, upon examination, referred his case to other better hospital, and while he was under treatment expired on 25-1-2011 due to cardiac arrest

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=dsatyanarayana74@gmail.com, CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA

Location:

leaving behind the first applicant and his sibling and wife (2nd applicant).

3. The applicants have submitted that the at the time of the demise of first applicant’s father, he was designated as Sr, Machine Assistant having pay roll No 4166 (SC). He had two children and wife. Immediately after his demise, the deceased employee’s legal heirs have obtained all required documents from concerned revenue authorities establishing their status of legal heirs to the deceased employee. Thereupon, all the legal heirs of the deceased employee have given a declaration to the 2nd respondent proposing the first applicant for the benefit of Compassionate Appointment applicable for the 2nd respondent organisation. The first applicant had requisite educational qualifications and he was fully qualified for undertaking the job under compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the first applicant and his mother made numerous requisitions to the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment.

4. The applicants have further submitted that there are nine Industrial Units of the Government of India for minting coins and printing currency notes, namely, (i) India Government Mint, Noida, (ii) India Government Mint, Kolkata, (iii) India Government Mint, Hyderabad, (iv) India Government Mint,

Location:

Mumbai, (v) Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, (vi) Bank Note Press, Dewas, (vii) Currency Note Press, Nashik, (viii) India Security Press, Nashik and (ix) Security Printing Press, Hyderabad. In pursuance of the decision of the Union Cabinet dated 2nd September, 2005, the Government of India decided to corporatize the functions of the aforesaid nine Units. Thereafter, an office memorandum dated 10th February, 2006, was issued by which the assets and liabilities of the aforesaid nine Units were transferred to the respondent No. 2, namely, the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited, which came into existence w.e.f. 13th January, 2006. The said Company has been incorporated as fully owned Government Company with limited liability by shares under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered and corporate office in New Delhi. By another office memorandum, the existing and subsisting contract and agreement of the said nine companies were transferred to the Respondent No.2. Similarly, another office memorandum dated 10th February, 2006, was issued regarding transfer of staff of aforesaid nine units. Thereafter, the management, control, operations and maintenance of production, printing, manufacturing of security papers, coins and medallions, currency and bank notes, stamps, non-judicial stamp papers, etc., have been transferred to the

Location:

Respondent No. 2 Company with effect from 10th February, 2006.

5. The applicants have further submitted that in accordance to the memorandum dated 10th February, 2006, the employees, who do not opt for absorption, will be referred to re-training and re- deployment division of Department of Personnel and Training for redeployment. Thus, the employees have been given the option either to opt for Government service or the services of the Corporation. If an employee desires to continue in Government service, he is at liberty to do so and would be absorbed in other Government department as per existing rules and regulations. In accordance to the said option, the first applicant’s father/ deceased employee, opted for retention in Government service. The said request was considered by the respondents and gave proceedings to deceased father of the first applicant dated 20-3-2010 & 5-10- 2010, informing that he was transferred under re-deployment by 2nd respondent addressing to the Director (Ad.II), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs, HUDCO Vishala building, Bhikaji Kama Palace, New Delhi dated 27-8-2010, that he was designated as Tax Assistant preferring him to Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, the deceased employee/father of the applicant has made a communication to the

Location:

5th respondent requesting him to place at Hyderabad, vide representation dated 29-12-2010. However, while the sanction of financial upgradation was taking place on 31-12-2011, the first applicant’s father was no more. There from, they have been making requests with respondents to consider their case for compassionate appointment. At that juncture, according to the applicants, they came to know a Scheme of Security Printing & Mining Corporation of India Ltd (SPMCIL), the successor company/ the 2nd respondent of erstwhile India Government Mint, Hyderabad, providing payment of lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. However, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 31-3-2016, clarified that the employees, who opted for Government service, would not fall under the said scheme and sought the 2nd respondent to take necessary action in this regard in which the applicants’ representation also laid as part and parcel of the said proceedings. While things stood so, they have been relentlessly making communications with respondents seeking for consideration of their case for compassionate appointment for which they are entitled. On one pretext or other the respondents have been causing delay in taking decision over the same for the reasons best known to them. However, the respondents have communicated

Location:

their response dated 06.02.2021 & 15-04-2021, informing to the first applicant that the status of their action on his case is still awaiting and so far no action forthcoming in this behalf by the respondents.

6. The applicants have contended that the respondents have totally failed to act on the grievance of the Applicant and dragging their case in considering for providing employment under compassionate appointment after accepting the deceased employee into Government Service under surplus employee category to 5th respondent, and thereby he has to be treated as regular employee as Per the CCS Rules 1990 and thereby the first applicant is entitled for getting employment under Compassionate appointment upon death of his father and thereby in respect of the grievance of the applicants, thus, there is an urgency to move this Tribunal by seeking the intervention of this Tribunal. Unless this Tribunal intervenes in the issue and direct the Respondents to give compassionate appointment in favour of the first applicant, the Applicants would lose all their rights and face irreparable loss.

7. The applicants have, therefore, contended that the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the applicants’ claim for compassionate appointment since 2012, after the demise of the first applicant’s father while on duty on 25.01.2011, despite

Location:

receiving all the concerned documents and forms from the applicants in this behalf and further the respondents communicating the first applicant vide letters dated 06.02.2021 and 15.04.2021, that their action on the claim of the applicants is still awaited is arbitrary, unfair, improper, unjust, dereliction and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to take decision expeditiously on the request of the applicants for compassionate appointment and to grant appointment to the first applicant under compassionate grounds.

8. The respondents 1 to 3 have contested the OA by filing a reply statement. Taking preliminary objections, the respondents have submitted that the present Original Application (OA) was primarily filed aggrieved by the alleged "inaction" of the respondents in deciding the applicants' claim for compassionate appointment. Since the respondents have considered the matter and communicated a final decision vide letter dated 23.03.2026, offering lump-sum compensation as a one-time measure, consequently, the grievance regarding "inaction" no longer survives. Further, it is well-settled that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but, a concession to mitigate immediate financial hardship. The deceased employee, Shri V.N. Rajaji, had opted for Government service and was declared a

Location:

surplus employee. There are no instructions or policies to consider compassionate appointment for dependents of deceased Government employees, who were declared surplus, but, remained un-redeployed at the time of death. The applicants are seeking compassionate appointment and it is nearly fifteen years after the death of the employee, which defeats the very object of the scheme. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but, only a concession provided in exceptional circumstances to mitigate immediate financial hardship, which is consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

9. The respondents 1 to 3 have not disputed the fact that the applicants have submitted their representation for considering their case for compassionate appointment. However, they have submitted that the averment that the Applicant had requisite educational qualifications cannot be verified for want of records in the office of 2nd respondent to establish the same. Further, the Compassionate Appointment cannot be claimed as a right merely on the basis of the death of the employee.

10. The respondents 1 to 3 have further not disputed the fact that the office of Respondent No.2, had been transferred to function under the control of office of Respondent No.3, by Respondent No.1, based on the decision of Union Cabinet dated 02.09.2005.

Location:

Further, as on date, the 2nd respondent’s office is guided by the policies and instructions issued by the office of the 3rd respondent.

11. The respondents 1 to 3 have denied the contention of the applicants that the applicants’ deceased father/husband was transferred under redeployment to Respondent No.5. The proceedings were issued by the Respondent No.2 office based on the orders issued by office of Respondent No.4, based on the option exercised to be retained in the Government service post- corporatization by the deceased father/husband of the applicants. Further, as regards to financial upgradation/MACP the respondents 1 to 3 have submitted that grant of the same is subject to conditions laid down by DoPT in its instructions and approval of Administrative Ministry and mere completion of service does not incur right to any employee to this effect.

12. The respondents 1 to 3 have submitted that the first applicant had submitted representation seeking compassionate appointment. However, in the absence of any rules/policy governing consideration of compassionate appointment for surplus declared Government employees, they cannot consider the application for grant of Compassionate Appointment. That apart, the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but, a

Location:

concession that is shown by the Government for a family which loses its breadwinner to tide over the immediate crisis that engulfs such families, and with the said object, the Rules are framed and any request for appointment on compassionate grounds will have to be strictly construed in terms of the Rules and not dehors the same. Since, no rules have been framed for surplus declared Government employees, their case for compassionate appointment, cannot be considered.

13. The respondents 1 to 3 have further submitted that the office of the Respondent No.3, vide Office Order bearing no. CHO(HR)/Policy/277/08/1994 dated 31.08.2009, has notified the policy of Lump Sum Compensation in lieu of Compassionate Appointment. As per Clause 3 of the said policy, the scheme, which is in lieu of appointments on compassionate ground, will be applicable to all categories of employees, who are in regular employment of the Company till the date of demise. However, as the deceased father/husband of the Applicants has opted for Government service, his case could not be considered for the same at that point of time. Nevertheless, the office of the Respondent No.1, taking a compassionate view in the matter, had, vide its Letter.No.6/2/2021-SPMC(E-300494058), dated 19.03.2026 requested the office of the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to

Location:

consider the case of the Applicants’ family for payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of Compassionate Appointment as per SPMCIL Lump sum Compensation Policy. Accordingly, the office of the Respondent No.2 & 3, after noting that, despite the case of the Applicants not falling under the policy of lump sum compensation of Respondent No.3, the Competent Authority, after taking a compassionate view based on the request of the Respondent No.1, has decided to extend the benefits of lump sum compensation, as a onetime measure to the Applicants’ family, and a communication in this regard has been made to the applicants by the Respondent No.2 office vide Lr.No.SPP/ HR/2015-16/Comp. Appt./Govt. Optees/4650, dated 23.03.2026. In view of the same, representations of the Applicants stands disposed of as on 23.03.2026. That apart, it is not disputed by the respondents that the communication dated 06.02.2021, were issued by Respondent No.2 office in response to grievance submitted by the applicant in PG Portal/CPGRAMS. However, the said communications cannot be construed as granting any right to appointment.

14. The respondents have submitted that, after formation of the Respondent No.3 Corporation, the erstwhile posts under Respondent No.1 were transferred to Respondent No.3 and as the

Location:

deceased father/husband of the Applicants opted for Government service, as admitted, their case for compassionate appointment can be considered in accordance with the rules prescribed for Surplus declared Government Servants. However, in the absence of any rules/policy governing consideration of compassionate appointment for surplus declared Government employees, the respondents cannot consider the application for grant of Compassionate Appointment to the first applicant. Further, the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and any request for appointment on compassionate grounds will have to be strictly construed in terms of the Rules and not dehors the same. Since, no rules have been framed for surplus declared Government employees, their case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Further, the existing DoPT guidelines for regular Government Servants working in a department provides compassionate appointment quota of 5% of Direct recruitment vacancies in a recruitment year. Since, all the posts under Government of India stands transferred to Respondent No.3/2, no such quota is available under Respondent No.1 for considering the case of the applicants for compassionate appointment. Hence, taking compassionate view of the matter, their case has been

Location:

considered for grant of Lump sum compensation as a one-time sympathetic measure.

15. The respondents 1 to 3 have contended that the employee expired on 25.01.2011, whereas the present OA has been filed in 2023. The claim has, therefore, been raised after more than 12 years. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee. Once the family has survived for several years, the very basis for compassionate appointment ceases to exist. In this case, the deceased father/husband of the applicants died during the year 2011 clearly shows that the family has been able to manage for 15 years can be considered as adequate proof that the family has some dependable means of subsistence. Moreover, the very purpose of the compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. Compassionate appointment is not a right vested in the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after long lapse of time.

16. In support of their contentions, the respondents 1 to 3 have quoted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dated 09.04.2021 in Civil Appeal No.897 of 2021, Central Coalfields

Location:

Limited & Ors. Vs, Smt. Parden Oraon , wherein it has been held as under: "9) ......we are convinced that the Respondent's son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time. The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the Respondent's husband had gone missing. As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased compassionate appointment after the passage of a long emplovee the Respondent's son is not entitled for period of time since his father has gone missing."

17. The respondents 1 to 3 have further quoted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583), wherein it has been held as under: “6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its breadearner. 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 possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate

Location:

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."

18. The respondents have also quoted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar and Ors, (2009) 13 SCC 112, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: "20. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

19. The respondents 1 to 3 have, therefore, contended that they have acted fairly by extending a financial benefit and that the applicants were not strictly entitled to under existing rules for surplus employees. As per the policy, the applicants must now submit the prescribed form in Annexure 'B' and requisite documents to process the payment of lump sum compensation. The offer of compensation is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 and fulfills the obligation to assist the bereaved family within the framework of available alternate schemes, and as a final decision had been taken and communicated to the applicants on 23.03.2026, they have prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA, and

Location:

they have prayed for a direction to the applicants to avail themselves of the offered lump-sum compensation by submitting the necessary forms to the 2nd Respondent.

20. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings placed on record.

21. The first applicant’s father, as per his option, was transferred under redeployment to the Director (Ad.III), Ministry of finance, department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs, HUDCO Vishala Building, Bhikaji Kama Palace, New Delhi, dated 27.08.2010. He was assigned the designation as Tax Assistant. Unfortunately, he died on 25.01.2011. As per the Scheme of Security Printing & Mining Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL), the employees are given lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. But, as per the respondents’ proceedings dated 31.03.2016, the said scheme is not applicable in the case of the first applicant’s deceased father, because he was not Corporation employee.

22. The contention of the applicants that the respondents have to treat the deceased employee as a regular employee is correct, but, the claim of the first applicant to get compassionate appointment

Location:

upon the death of his father is not a matter of right. The first applicant’s father died while on duty on 25.01.2011, and the applicant has filed the OA on 10.10.2023. The very purpose of providing compassionate appointment to the successor of the deceased employee is to make them feel comfortable due to the sudden demise of the earning member of the family. In this case, there is a delay of 15 years. It is also informed by the respondents that though the deceased employee is not entitled to claim payment of lumpsum compensation, but, taking a lenient view, vide letter dated 23.03.2026, the respondents have offered the same as a one time measure to the surviving family of the deceased employee. Since the respondents have offered the payment of lumpsum compensation, their contention is that the grievance of the applicants has been resolved.

23. The respondents have also submitted that as on today, there is no policy/rule governing consideration of compassionate appointment for surplus deployed Government employees. Therefore, in its absence, the application of the applicants cannot be considered. The respondents have also highlighted the fact that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and any request for compassionate appointment has to be strictly

Location:

examined in terms of the rules only. The existing DOPT guidelines for the regular Government servants working in a department, provides compassionate appointment quota of 5% of Direct Recruitment vacancies in a year. Since all the posts under Government of India stands transferred to the actually incorporated Security Printing & Mining Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL), there is no such quota available for considering the case of the applicants for compassionate appointment. So, as per the policy only, the relief has to be granted to the applicants. It is a fact that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure of the Government and it is granted to help the surviving family to overcome the sudden financial crisis etc.,.

24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 07.08.2013 in Civil Appeal No.6348/2013 in M G B Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, has observed that – “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

Location:

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 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.”

25. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 138], has held as under: "2……………..As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. 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. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 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

Location:

both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants 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 give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned 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 family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the Change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.

Location:

3. Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible.”

26. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “the only ground, which can justify compassionate appointment, is the penurious condition of the deceased family”.

27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director of Education (Secondary) & Another v. Pushpendra Kumar & Others (AIR 1998 SC 2230), has also held as under: “The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to 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 for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision

Location:

to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment of seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138, this Court has taken note of the object underlying the rules providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and has held that the Government or the public authority concerned 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 family.”

28. It is to be noted that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a right, but, a humanitarian gesture and a welfare measure on the part of the Government. It cannot be used for the back door entry into Government service. The first applicant’s father, at the time of his death, was not a Corporation (SPMCIL) employee. As per his option, he was continued in Government service and redeployed as the Tax Assistant in the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs. The first applicant

Location:

cannot claim his appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of his right, but, as pointed out by the respondents in the letter dated 15.04.2021, “As per CCS (RSS) Rules, 1990, a surplus employee is a regular/permanent employee of Central Government. Therefore, request of Ms.V.Amala, wife of late Shri V.N.Rajaji for compassionate appointment of her son may please be examined as per extant rules and instructions under intimation to this Department. Applicant may also be suitably informed”.

29. With these deliberations (supra), the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the application of the applicants according to rules in vogue and issue speaking and reasoned orders within three months after the receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SHALINI MISRA)

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Adl/Dsn/

Location: