- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dhalla Ram v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds after his father, a government employee, died in harness on 13-12-1965. At the time of his father’s death the petitioner was under six years old and, by his own statement, attained the age of majority on 12-07-1977. He submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 15-07-1987, which the Government rejected on 14-07-1988. The petitioner then filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on 12-07-1993. The CAT dismissed the application on 12-07-1993. The present special leave petition challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained more than two decades after the employee’s death and almost six years after the claimant attained majority.
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the application due to delay.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process, intended solely for the immediate rehabilitation of a deceased employee’s family to prevent destitution. Because the petitioner waited until 1987—nearly 22 years after his father’s death and 10 years after attaining majority—to submit his application, the purpose of immediate relief was defeated. Furthermore, the petitioner delayed another five years after governmental rejection before approaching the Tribunal. In view of this “long delay,” the Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim.
Holding and Implications
Special Leave Petition Dismissed.
The dismissal leaves intact the CAT’s decision refusing compassionate appointment. The ruling underscores that such appointments are strictly for prompt relief and cannot be claimed after protracted delays; however, it sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming this established principle.
Order
1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on 12-7-1993 dismissing the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The father of the petitioner died on 13-12-1965 on which date the petitioner was below 6 years. He attained majority, on his own statement, on 12-7-1977, when he completed 18 years of age. He made an application on 15-7-1987 for his employment on compassionate grounds. The very object of making appointment on compassionate grounds is to rehabilitate the family in distress of the deceased employee who dies in harness. There should be no difficulty in considering an eligible candidate for providing immediate sustenance to the members of the deceased employee. He had applied on 15-7-1987 and the application was rejected on 14-7-1988. He filed the OA on 12-7-1993. In view of the long delay, after the refusal by the Government, in filing the application, the same cannot be entertained. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not a method of recruitment but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution.
2. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the application on 12-7-1993.
3. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Alert