The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has clarified that compassionate appointment under the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 is governed by statutory eligibility criteria, not familial objections or unproven criminal allegations. The judgment dismisses a challenge to the appointment of a widow, holding that mere pendency of an FIR without conviction does not disentitle a legally wedded spouse from compassionate benefits, especially when the deceased employee’s nomination designates her as the beneficiary.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Smt. Saroj Devi, is the mother of Arvind Kumar, a deceased government employee who died in harness on 28.06.2018 while serving as a Clerk under the Principal Account General (General & Social Sector Audit), U.P. Respondent-4, Smt. Durga Devi (widow of Arvind Kumar), was granted compassionate appointment on 28.12.2021 and received terminal benefits pursuant to the deceased’s nomination. The applicant challenged this appointment, alleging that Respondent-4 was responsible for her son’s suicide and had failed to care for the family.
Key Facts
- Arvind Kumar was appointed on compassionate grounds on 31.12.2009 after the death of his father, Ram Chandra Prasad, who passed away on 12.04.2006
- The applicant, Smt. Saroj Devi, has been receiving family pension since her husband’s death
- Arvind Kumar married Respondent-4 but allegedly faced harassment from her and her family, leading to his suicide on 28.06.2018 within office premises
- The applicant lodged a complaint with the police, and an FIR (No. 568/2018) was registered on 12.10.2018 against Respondent-4 and others for abetment of suicide
- The Investigating Officer submitted a final report, finding no criminal liability against Respondent-4
- The applicant informed the respondent department about the FIR and requested that no benefits be released to Respondent-4
- Despite this, Respondent-4 was granted compassionate appointment on 28.12.2021 and received terminal benefits based on the deceased’s nomination
- The applicant’s daughter, Preeti, also applied for compassionate appointment on 14.01.2020 but was rejected on grounds that only the spouse, son, or daughter of a deceased employee is eligible under the DoPT OM dated 16.01.2013
Procedural History
- 18.06.2019: Applicant submitted a representation to the respondents seeking disbursement of benefits to herself and compassionate appointment for another family member
- 21.08.2019: Respondent-2 informed the applicant that dues had already been released to Respondent-4
- 14.01.2020: Applicant’s daughter, Preeti, applied for compassionate appointment
- 24.06.2020: Respondents rejected Preeti’s application, citing the DoPT OM dated 16.01.2013, which limits eligibility to spouse, son, or daughter
- 2021: Preeti filed OA No. 69/2021, which was disposed of with a direction to decide her representation
- 28.12.2021: Respondent-4 was granted compassionate appointment
- 2022: Present Original Application No. 334/2022 filed by the applicant challenging Respondent-4’s appointment
- 02.09.2022: Counter affidavit filed by official respondents
- 03.01.2023: Counter affidavit filed by Respondent-4
- 06.08.2024: Rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant
- 22.05.2026: Judgment pronounced, dismissing the Original Application
Relief Sought
The applicant sought:
- Termination of Respondent-4’s services on grounds of alleged involvement in the deceased’s suicide and failure to care for the family
- Quashing of Respondent-4’s compassionate appointment
- Costs of the Original Application
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether compassionate appointment under the DoPT OM dated 16.01.2013 can be denied to a legally wedded spouse on the basis of:
- Unproven criminal allegations (pendency of an FIR without conviction)
- Familial objections (absence of No Objection Certificate from other dependants)
- Alleged failure to care for the deceased’s family
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- Eligibility Challenge: Respondent-4’s appointment is illegal as she failed to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the applicant and other dependants, violating the spirit of compassionate appointment
- Dependency Argument: The deceased had declared at the time of his own compassionate appointment that he would care for his mother and sister. Respondent-4, therefore, had an obligation to support them, which she allegedly failed to fulfill
- Criminal Allegations: The pendency of FIR No. 568/2018 for abetment of suicide should have disqualified Respondent-4 from compassionate benefits
- Precedent Reliance: Cited Usha Ganesh Giri v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (WP No. 2741/2021), decided on 08.04.2022, to argue that compassionate appointment must consider the welfare of all dependants
For the Respondents
- Statutory Compliance: Respondent-4’s appointment strictly adhered to the DoPT OM dated 16.01.2013, which defines "dependent family member" as the spouse, son, or daughter. As the legally wedded wife, she was fully eligible
- Nomination Validity: Terminal benefits were released to Respondent-4 based on the deceased’s valid nomination, which is binding under service rules
- Criminal Allegations Irrelevant: The final report submitted by the Investigating Officer exonerated Respondent-4. Mere pendency of an FIR, without conviction, cannot disentitle her from compassionate benefits
- Personal Disputes: Allegations of harassment and failure to care for the family are matrimonial in nature and have no bearing on eligibility under the compassionate appointment scheme
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the DoPT OM dated 16.01.2013, which governs compassionate appointments, and held that the scheme’s primary objective is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee. The eligibility criteria are statutorily defined, and the spouse of the deceased is expressly included as a "dependent family member."
"The compassionate appointment scheme is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family members of the deceased employees, who were left in financial distress due to the sudden demise of the employee in harness."
The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s argument that Respondent-4’s appointment should be set aside due to the pendency of an FIR. It held that mere lodging of an FIR or unproven allegations, in the absence of a conviction or judicial finding, cannot disentitle an eligible dependent from compassionate benefits. The final report submitted by the Investigating Officer was deemed conclusive in this regard.
"Mere lodging of an FIR or pendency of allegations, in the absence of any conviction or finding recorded by a competent court of law, cannot by itself disentitle Respondent-4 from being considered for compassionate appointment."
The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant’s contention that Respondent-4 should have obtained an NOC from other family members. It held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of inheritance or succession but a policy-driven relief to mitigate financial distress. The scheme does not mandate consent from other dependants, especially when the deceased’s nomination designates the spouse as the beneficiary.
Further, the Tribunal noted that the applicant is already receiving a family pension after the death of her husband, Ram Chandra Prasad. Thus, she cannot claim financial dependency on the deceased employee in the same manner as Respondent-4, who was entirely dependent on her husband’s income.
The judgment relied upon by the applicant, Usha Ganesh Giri, was distinguished on facts. The Tribunal held that the case did not establish a blanket rule requiring NOCs from all dependants but was decided on its specific factual matrix.
The Verdict
The Original Application was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld Respondent-4’s compassionate appointment, holding that:
- The appointment was granted in strict compliance with the DoPT OM dated 16.01.2013
- The final report in FIR No. 568/2018 exonerated Respondent-4, and unproven allegations cannot disentitle her
- The deceased’s nomination in favour of Respondent-4 was valid and binding
- No No Objection Certificate is required from other dependants under the scheme
- The applicant’s financial dependency was not equivalent to that of Respondent-4, who was entirely dependent on the deceased’s income
No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compassionate Appointment Is Statutorily Driven, Not Discretionary
- Eligibility Criteria Prevail: The judgment reaffirms that compassionate appointment is governed by statutory rules (e.g., DoPT OM dated 16.01.2013) and not by familial objections or unproven allegations. Practitioners must argue eligibility based on the express terms of the policy, not extraneous factors
- Nomination Is Binding: Where the deceased employee has nominated a spouse as the beneficiary, the department is bound to release benefits to the nominee, unless the nomination is legally invalid
Criminal Allegations Alone Cannot Disentitle
- Final Report Is Conclusive: Mere pendency of an FIR does not disqualify an eligible dependent. The final report submitted by the Investigating Officer carries significant weight, and departments are unlikely to deny benefits in its absence
- Conviction Required: Courts will not deny compassionate benefits based on unproven allegations. Practitioners challenging such appointments must produce judicial findings or convictions to succeed
Financial Dependency Is Key, Not Moral Obligations
- Pensioners Excluded: The judgment clarifies that dependants already receiving family pension or other financial support cannot claim equivalent dependency on the deceased employee’s benefits
- Scheme’s Objective: Compassionate appointment is intended to mitigate immediate financial distress, not to enforce moral obligations or familial care. Departments will prioritize the most financially vulnerable dependant, typically the spouse or children
