The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20614 of 2025 Union of India and others ….. Petitioners Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel, Union of India -versus- Banani Das ..... Opp. Party CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 04.08.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). The petitioners, Union of India and others have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short, “Tribunal”) in O.A. No.260/00618 of 2023 under Annexure-3. The opp. party was the applicant before the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. prayed for a direction to the opp. parties (petitioners in the present writ petition) to appoint her on compassionate ground from the date when the first appointment was made after the death of her father with grant of all service and consequential financial benefits retrospectively by quashing the Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Aug-2025 18:03:57 rejections orders. From the factual scenario, it appears that the father of the opp. party was the Sr. Tax Assistant under the petitioners and he expired on 13.01.2003. The opp. party submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground but her claim was rejected for which, she approached the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.542 of 2013 challenging the selection and appointment against the vacancies of 2009-2010. The learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No.542 of 2013 on 27.03.2015, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.15867 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 13.07.2022 quashed the order of the learned Tribunal dated 27.03.2015 in O.A. No.542 of 2013 and remitted back the matter to the Compassionate Appointment Committee to reconsider the case of the opp. party for giving compassionate appointment. In compliance of the order dated 13.07.2022 of this Court, petitioners’ considered the case of the opp. party but rejected vide letter dated 15.02.2023 on the ground that the opp. party has got lower point as per 100-point criteria. The opp. party submitted an appeal against the said order of rejection praying for reconsider her, which was also rejected vide letters dated 08.06.2023 & 30.04.2024 by reiterating the ground of rejection taken in the letter dated 15.02.2023. The learned Tribunal has been pleased to consider the ground of rejection which was on the basis of 100- Page 2 of 8 point formula and has been pleased to hold as follows: on by her the applications bunching “4. The criteria for 100 point formula came into effect much after the date of death of the father of the applicant and submission of application compassionate appointment are not in dispute. It is the specific case of the applicant that the CAC ought to have convened on each year and consider the applications received for the particular year and should not have convened the CAC meeting after two to three years and the consider vacancies without segregating the vacancy position and applications received on year to year basis. This has also not been specifically countered by the respondents by placing the minutes of the CAC to negative such stand of the applicant. Further, it is the specific case of the applicant that considering the applications applying the 100 point formula, which came into effect subsequently is bad in law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Awasthi [supra] and Malaya Nanda Sethi [supra]. Hence, before going further ahead in the matter, it is significant to place on record the relevant portion of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi [supra], which is as under: "We have noted that there is a conflict of view, as to whether the scheme/rules in force on the date of death of the government servant would apply or the scheme/rules in force on the date of consideration of the application on compassionate Page 3 of 8 in the peculiar grounds would apply. There are divergent views and the conflict of opinion in different decisions of this Court. However, keeping the said question aside, for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are of the opinion facts and that circumstances of the appellant herein shall be entitled for appointment compassionate ground as per the 1990 rules, which were applicable at the time when the deceased employee died and the appellant herein made an application for appointment on the death of his father, i.e., in the year 2010. the case, on of appointment 9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe the object and that considering purpose on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee may be placed financial in a position of hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy in rendering of financial assistance to the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide for compassionate appointment grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of completed submission applications immediacy family such such the on of of is Page 4 of 8 applications. is in the consideration of We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not time and are kept attended pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for their applications. Even after such a frivolous or direction issued, for vexatious reasons are given the applications. Once rejecting again, to rejection the order of challenge before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, the the employee who died in harness in the financial difficulty. lurch and Further, for reasons best known to irrelevant the authorities and on considerations, applications made for compassionate are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case. the applicants have appointment family of leaving in on the object and purpose of If compassionate appointment grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are Page 5 of 8 regarding controversy considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only of and object the appointment compassionate on grounds can be achieved." purpose 5. On examination of the factual matrix and the grounds of rejection with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethi [supra], I find that the grounds set forth by the applicant in support of the relief is covered by the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. I also find that the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that delay in giving appointment on compassionate ground leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service and in the instant case considerable time has already been elapsed, which is not attributable to the Page 6 of 8 In to appoint the peculiar applicant. facts and circumstances of the case, instead of giving direction to the respondents to consider the case again, the respondents are hereby directed the applicant on compassionate ground in any suitable post within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned letters dated 15.02.2023 (A/3), 08.06.2023 (A/4) and dated 30.04.2024 (A/6) are hereby quashed. In the result, the OA stands allowed. No costs.” Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that the representation of the opp. party has been earlier rejected and the petitioners’ duly considered her case and therefore, the direction of the learned Tribunal to appoint her on compassionate ground in any suitable post is not sustainable in the eyes of law. After going through the impugned order, we find that the learned Tribunal has specifically taken into account that the 100-point formula came subsequently which was not prevailing at the time of death of the father of the opp. party and taking into account the ratio laid down in the cases of The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. -Vrs. Ashish Awasthi and Ors. reported in (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 157 and Malaya Nanda Sethi -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in AIR 2022 SC 2836, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the opp. party is entitled to get the Page 7 of 8 relief and the delay whatsoever it may be, is not attributable to her. In view of the above, we find that there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge Judge ( S. S. Mishra) Sipun Page 8 of 8