The petitioner challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment on the grounds of significant delay. The Tribunal upheld the rejection, citing that the appointment was sought 18 years after the employee's death, which contradicts the scheme's objective of immediate financial succour.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1277 of 2015
=========================================================== Dukha Roy, son of late Rameshray Roy, resident of village - Balutola, P.S. - Manihari, District - Katihar.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Krishna Bariar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 02-05-2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 639 of 2012 is subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. Vide the aforesaid
order, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate
Patna High Court CWJC No.1277 of 2015 dt.02-05-2016
2 /5
grounds was found to be without any merit.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1277 of 2015 dt.02-05-2016
3 /5
Application and the annexures appended thereto. It is thereafter, the impugned order dated 20th of October, 2011 was passed wherein, it is, inter alia , mentioned that petitioner is not mentioned as the son of the deceased during the entire service period of the ex employee. It is also found that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2007 i.e. after 18 years of the date of death and that no reason has been cited for condonation of such a long delay.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1277 of 2015 dt.02-05-2016
4 /5
on compassionate grounds should be sought soon after the loss of bread winner and not after the attaining of majority of the dependent member. The Court held as follows:-
“11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependants is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependants and the financial deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependants of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1277 of 2015 dt.02-05-2016
5 /5
present writ application. The same is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) P.K.P. N.A.F.R. U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim for compassionate appointment after 18 years of the date of death of the breadwinner can be condoned.
Whether compassionate appointment is a vested right exercisable at any time in the future.
Whether a delay of 18 years in seeking compassionate appointment violates the object of the scheme under Articles 14 and 16.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of HaryanaFollowed¶32
Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 · Who else cites this
Local Admn. Deptt. v. M. SelvanayagamFollowed¶34
Local Admn. Deptt. v. M. Selvanayagam, (2011) 13 SCC 42 · Who else cites this
Dukha Roy
The Union of India through the Chairman, Ministry of Railway
The DRM (P), N.F. Railway, Katihar
The General Manager, N.F. Railway
The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Katihar, N.F. Railway
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
