Compassionate appointment can’t be denied on hyper-technical grounds: CAT

Srinagar, Nov 23: Underscoring that compassionate appointment could not be denied on hyper-technical or arbitrary grounds, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has quashed an order whereby case of a woman for appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 was rejected in terms of an order dated June 24, 2022 by Director Handicrafts and Handloom Kashmir.

The tribunal set aside the rejection in response to a plea by a woman whose father had died in harness in July 2019 while working as Senior Assistant-cum-Store Keeper in the Handicrafts and Handloom Department.

Soon after her father’s demise, the woman being an “unmarried daughter and dependent on the deceased” had applied for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 through the Assistant Director, Handicrafts, Ganderbal, within the prescribed time.

Her case was rejected following the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue)Ganderbal's observation on September 14, 2020 that “the element of compassion does not exist in the family.”

The rejection was based on the contention that as per Rule 3 of SRO 43 of 1994, compassionate appointment could only be granted if the element of compassion and dependency both exist. On the basis of the ACR’s report, it was concluded that the case did not fall within the scope of SRO 43.

The applicant petitioned through her counsel Faizan M Bhat and assailed the rejection order.

Advocate Fiazan submitted that The Tehsildar, Lar, in reports dated 16.10.2019 and 06.11.2021, reaffirmed that the woman was unmarried and that the element of compassion continued to exist in the family, consisting only of the widowed mother and unmarried daughter(petitioner).

He contended that despite multiple favourable reports, the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Ganderbal, arbitrarily recorded that the “element of communication dated compassion does not exist” in the family, without any supporting reasoning or material.

The Counsel further contended that by “relying solely on this erroneous report, the Handicrafts and Handloom department rejected the applicant’s claim.

After hearing the parties through their counsel and perusing the record on file, the tribunal noted the record showed that the competent revenue authorities repeatedly confirmed the applicant’s unmarried status and dependency as the same was reflected in the reports of the Tehsildar dated October 16, 2019, November 4, 2019, and November 6, 2021.

The reports consistently held that she was living with her widowed mother and that the element of compassion existed.

The tribunal noted that the only adverse remark relied upon by the respondents was the observation of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Ganderbal that “the element of compassion does not exist.”

“However, the said communication gives no reasoning or material basis for such conclusion and even acknowledges the applicant’s unmarried status. On the contrary, all earlier and subsequent reports—including that of the Naib Tehsildar dated 14.08.2021—confirmed that the petitioner’s family is solely comprised of an aged widow and an unmarried daughter with no independent source of income”.

“It is well settled that the object of compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family of a deceased government employee to prevent destitution and financial hardship”, the tribunal said. “Once dependency and financial distress are established, denial of appointment on vague grounds of “absence of compassion” defeats the very intent of the scheme”.

Citing the Supreme Court judgement, the tribunal said the apex court in its decision has held that “compassionate appointment cannot be denied on hyper-technical or arbitrary grounds”.

In the judgment delivered recently, the tribunal observed that “the records clearly demonstrate that the deceased employee’s two married sons were living separately, and that only the widow and the applicant were dependent upon his earnings”. “Therefore, the conclusion that no element of compassion exists is perverse and contrary to the factual record,” the tribunal said and set-aside the rejection order dated June 24, 2022 “being non-speaking and having been passed without application of mind”.