The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22996 of 2025 Union of India and others … Petitioners Mr.Rakesh Behera, CGC. -versus- Sebati Rout and another …. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA ORDER 17.09.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and others challenging the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 224 of 2022 under Annexure- 7. It appears that the opposite parties filed Original Application No. 224 of 2022 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, ‘Tribunal’) praying for the following reliefs: “(i) To quash the decision dt.03.03.2020 taken by the Respondent No.3 under Annexure-A/14; (ii) And to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the applicant no.2 in any other category rather than work charged establishment till the ban order is lifted.” The brief facts of the case, as inter alia averred by the opposite parties in the Original Application, is that the father of opposite party no. 2, namely, Prafulla Chandra Rout, who was working as a Khalasi since 12.02.1978 in the establishment of Page 1 of 10
Facts
petitioner No. 2 went missing since 04.04.2003 and an FIR was lodged by opposite party no.1. The petitioner no.4 vide letter dated 10.08.2009 requested the opposite party no.1 to produce a proper and undisputable proof of death or a decree of the Court that the employee concerned shall be presumed to be dead as laid down under section 108 of the Evidence Act from the competent authority and to submit the same in original along with the claim in Form No.6. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 filed a Civil Suit before the competent Civil Judge to pass a decree declaring civil death of her husband. On getting the decree from the learned Civil Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2010, the opposite parties applied revenue authorities for death certificate as well as legal heir certificate. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 submitted the same before the petitioners and prayed the authorities to release the death -cum- retirement benefits and to give compassionate appointment to her son (opposite party no.2). On proper scrutiny, the petitioners issued Pension Payment Order and released the death-cum- retirement financial benefits in favour of opposite party no.1 and the petitioner no.4 vide letter dated 24.03.2015 directed the opposite party no. 2 to furnish certain information to his office by 25.04.2015 for considering his case for compassionate appointment and the opposite party no. 2 submitted the same. Petitioner No. 4 again vide letter dated 27.07.2016 and 05.06.2017 asked for the some documents to which the opposite party no.2 again complied by providing the same. Again the petitioners vide letters dated 07.06.2018 and 07.12.2018 sought some further documents from the opposite part no. 2 to which he submitted the same on 22.06.2018 and 01.03.2019. Since no communication was made by the petitioners to the opposite party no.2, he submitted a representation on 09.12.2019 before petitioner No. 3 and when Page 2 of 10 no action was taken, opposite party no.2 filed W.P.(C) No. 2523 of 2020 before this Court and vide order dated 04.02.2020, this Court disposed of the same directing the petitioner no.3 to dispose of the representation of the opposite party no.2 within a period of one and half months from the date of communication of the order. Petitioner No. 3 vide letter dated 03.03.2020 under Annexure-3 disposed of the same indicating therein that the case of compassionate appointment shall be taken up once ban on recruitment is withdrawn. Opposite party no.2 again submitted another representation dated 07.02.2022 before Petitioner No.2 for reconsideration of his case. Since no action was taken, he filed the aforesaid Original Application. The petitioners, as respondents, appeared in the said Original Application and filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that case of the opposite party no. 2 for compassionate appointment was taken into consideration time and again along with other applicants and merit list of all applicants was prepared based on the guidelines of DoPT and the person who secured first position was offered appointment against the single vacancy for the recruitment year 2014. It was submitted that opposite party no. 2 stood 3rd in the merit list and compassionate appointment can be made upto 5% of vacancies under Direct Recruitment quota as per DOPT OM dated 14.06.2006 and CWC Headquarter vide their letter dated 16.11.2018 had directed all the field organizations to keep on hold all the recruitment in work charged establishment until further orders. It was further stated that as per direction of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, the department of Water Resources vide order dated 06.06.2022 had abolished 2979 vacant posts of work charged establishment. In the counter affidavit, it was submitted that the said order further stipulated that any future vacancies arising after 01.06.2022 in Page 3 of 10 work charged establishment shall be deemed to be abolished from the date of occurrence of the said vacancy and therefore after issuance of the order, there is no scope left for any fresh recruitment including compassionate appointment under Work Charged Establishment. With such grounds, the petitioners prayed for dismissal of the Original Application. The opposite parties also filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating their stand taken in the Original Application and the petitioners also filed reply to the same. The learned Tribunal after considering the pleadings and
Legal Reasoning
said to be satisfactory explained. Thus, we find that the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the position of law and disposed of the O.A. with the direction as aforesaid. We come to the conclusion that non-consideration of the case of the opposite party no.2 for grant of compassionate appointment and rejection of the representation in the factual scenario suffers from arbitrariness and it is a case of non-application of mind on the part of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly quashed the decision dated 03.03.2020 taken by petitioner no.3 and directed the petitioners to consider the case of the opposite party no.2 for grant of compassionate appointment by constituting CRC and to pass a speaking order.
Arguments
on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties held as follows: “7. The cases of compassionate appointment are considered under the Scheme for Compassionate appointment issued by DOPT. The DOPT in its OM dated 16.01.2013 had given consolidated instructions for compassionate appointment. The relevant portion of the scheme as applicable in this case is extracted below for better appreciation: “6. Exemptions Compassionate appointments are exempted from observance of' the following requirements: (a) Recruitment procedure i.e. without the agency of the Staff Selection Commission or the Employment Exchange. (b) Clearance from the Surplus Cell of the Department of Personnel and Training/Directorate General of Employment and Training. (c) The ban orders on filling up of posts issued by Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).” 8. It is quite evident from 6 (c) that the ban orders on filling of posts issued by the Ministry of Page 4 of 10 Finance (Department of Expenditure) is not a roadblock for consideration of cases of compassionate appointment. Therefore the action of the respondents is not as per rules and illegal. Further it is seen that 2979 posts which were lying vacant were abolished in the year 2022. Even though recruitment to those posts were kept on hold but by virtue of exemptions provided under Clause 6 (c) of DOPT OM dated 16.01.2013, 5% of those posts should have been filled up through compassionate appointment. It is also not the stand of the respondents that the work charged employees are not regular employees. The employees who were/are working in the work charged establishment are regular employees and it is not that the grant of compassionate appointment to their dependents can only be done in work charged establishment only. The case of the applicant no. 2 could have been considered against vacancy position in the whole respondents organization. 9. In view of the above discussions, the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the applicant no. 2 for grant of compassionate appointment and their rejection vide letter dated '63.03/2bi26 is arbitrary, illegal and non application of mind and therefore the same stands quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant no. 2 for grant of compassionate appointment by constituting CRC and pass a speaking order to be communicated to the applicant. The entire exercise shall be completed Page 5 of 10 within a period of 6 months.” It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that since the father of the opposite party no.2, who is also the husband of opposite party no.1 was found missing since 04.04.2003 as per the averments taken in the Original Application and within two years, the application for compassionate appointment should have been filed and since the representation was filed on 09.12.2019, the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered on the ground of delay. He further submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 04.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 2523 of 2020, the representation of the petitioner was considered in accordance with law and thereafter, the petitioners were justified in rejecting the same on the ground of lack of vacancy. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 2023 Supreme Court 1467 (State of West Bengal -Vrs.- Debabrata Tiwari), he submitted that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and where substantial time has elapsed since the death of the employee, it is undesirable to grant compassionate appointment to the family members. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we find that the opposite parties were not aware about the death of Prafulla Chandra Rout, who was working as a Khalasi in the establishment of petitioner no.3. It further appears that in connection with missing of the father of opposite party no.2, F.I.R. was lodged and ultimately, the opposite parties approached the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) for declaring Prafulla Chandra Rout as civil dead and after passing the judgment dated 29.01.2010, they could able to get the death certificate of Prafulla Chandra Rout and the death certificate indicates that the date of death of Prafulla Chandra Rout is Page 6 of 10 29.01.2010. The office memorandum dated 14.06.2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension Department of Personnel and Training provides the scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Government, which reads as follows: No.14014/3/2006-Estt(D) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training New Delhi, dated the 14th June, 2006 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject : Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under the Central Government- Determination of vacancies for. The undersigned is directed to say that the existing Scheme for Compassionate Appointment is contained in this Department’s OM.No.14014/6/94-Estt.(D) dated the 9th October, 1998 as amended from time to time. Para 7(b) of this OM provides that compassionate appointment can be made upto a maximum of 6% of vacancies under Direct Recruitment quota in any Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ post. 2. After coming into effect of DOP&T instructions No.2/8/2001-PlC dated the 16th May, 2001 on optimisation of direct recruitment to civilian posts, the direct recruitment would be limited to 1/3rd of the direct recruitment vacancies arising in the year subject to a further ceiling that this does not exceed 1% of the total sanctioned strength of the Department As a result of these instructions, there has been a continuous reduction in the number of vacancies for direct recruitment, consequently resulting in availability of very few vacancies or no vacancy under 5% quota for Page 7 of 10 compassionate appointment. Because of this, the various Ministries have been facing difficulty in implementing the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment even in the most deserving cases. 3. On a demand raised by Staff Side in the Standing Committee of the National Council (JCM) for review of the compassionate appointment policy, the matter has been carefully examined and taking into account the fact that the reduction in the number of vacancies lor compassionate appointment is being caused due to operation of the orders on optimization of Direct Recruitment vacancies, the following decisions have been taken:- While the existing ceiling of 5 % for compassionate appointment may not be modified but the 5% ceiling may be calculated on the basis of total direct recruitment vacancies for Group C' and ‘D’ 'posts (excluding technical posts ) that have arisen in the year. Total vacancies available for making direct recruitment would be calculated by deducting the vacancies to be filled on the basis of compassionate appointment from the vacancies available for direct recruitment in terms of existing orders on optimization. 4. The instructions contained in the O.M. No.14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated 9th October, 1998, as amended from time to time, stand modified to the extent mentioned above. 5. The above decision may be brought to the notice of all concerned for information, guidance and necessary action. Page 8 of 10 6. Hindi version will follow. (Smita Kumar) Director (E.I)” The Central Water Commission, Government of India issued the letter dated 06.03.2018 that all the recruitments in the work charged establishment of C.W.C. to be kept on hold by all the Field Organization of C.W.C. till further order. The death certificate shows that the date of death of Prafulla Chandra Rout, the father of opposite party no.2 is 29.01.2010 has not been challenged by the petitioners. At the relevant point of time, the aforesaid office memorandum dated 14.06.2006 relating to the scheme for compassionate appointment under the Central Government was in force and therefore, the opposite party no.2 was entitled to be considered for the same. It is also not in dispute that from time to time, the petitioners wrote letters to the opposite party no.2 asking him for submission of documents for considering his case for compassionate appointment and the opposite party no.2 also complied with the same and all these exercises were done prior to the ban on recruitment in work charged establishment was imposed. The decision on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Union of India is not applicable in the present case since the opposite parties were not aware about the death of the deceased employee and only when the competent Civil Court delivered the judgment declaring the civil death of the deceased employee, the death certificate was obtained by the opposite parties which confirmed the date of death of the deceased employee to be 29.01.2010. That apart, the office memorandum dated 14.06.2006 was very much in force for grant of compassionate appointment when application was submitted by the opposite party no.2. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crises. Page 9 of 10 The delay, if any, caused in submitting the application can be
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) PKSahoo Judge (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 13-Oct-2025 13:14:07 Page 10 of 10