Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M. Kranthi, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench, dated 03.04.2023 in O.A.No.310/00193/2022, which rejected his claim for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's father, Late Manohar, was initially appointed on a temporary basis in 1981, made permanent on 01.05.1992, promoted to Telephone Mechanic on 13.02.2003, and died on 20.06.2016 due to illness. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and medical reimbursement. The Department had no objection to clearing medical claims on production of relevant bills, and bills were already cleared. Regarding compassionate appointment, the Department assessed the criteria under the scheme and awarded the petitioner 34 points, which were below the cut-off, leading to rejection. The CAT upheld the rejection. The High Court held that compassionate appointment is a concession, not an absolute right, and must be granted only when the family is in dire financial distress. The scheme must be implemented scrupulously. The court found no infirmity in the CAT order and dismissed the writ petition. The court also noted that the medical reimbursement claim was separate and already addressed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Concession Not a Right - Compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right; it must be granted only when the family is in dire financial distress due to the death of the government servant. The scheme must be implemented scrupulously adhering to the terms and conditions stipulated. (Paras 3-4) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Points-Based Assessment - The Department assessed the petitioner's claim under the scheme and awarded 34 points, which were below the cut-off, leading to rejection. Such a points-based assessment is valid and binding. (Para 2) C) Service Law - Medical Reimbursement - Separate Claim - The Department had no objection to clearing medical claims in accordance with terms and conditions on production of relevant bills, and bills were already cleared. This claim is separate from compassionate appointment. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of compassionate appointment based on the points-based assessment under the BSNL Scheme is valid and whether the CAT order suffers from any infirmity.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no infirmity in the CAT order. The court held that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and the scheme must be scrupulously followed. The rejection based on points below cut-off was valid.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is a concession
- not a right
- Scheme must be scrupulously followed
- Points-based assessment is valid
- Cut-off points determine eligibility
- Medical reimbursement is separate from compassionate appointment
