JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India who appeared for the petitioner and Sri L.M. Singh learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.12.2010 passed in O.A. No. 1468 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 1. 3. By the impugned decision the applicant has been directed to be placed at serial No. 1 in the wait listed candidates for giving compassionate appointment and that is to be considered in the next meeting. There is further direction that claim of the applicant is not to be rejected for delay and in view of his age. Writ petition was just filed as a fresh and at the first hearing learned counsel for the respondents even did not ask for time to file counter-affidavit, and therefore, whatever materials are on record, arguments were heard. For passing appropriate orders at this stage brief facts noticed below will suffice. Moti Lal was appointed/engaged as Labour in Garrison Engineer Project, Midssarrari who is said to have died on 13th May, 1989 (somewhere mentioned on 3.3.1989). Two sons and one daughter (as mentioned at pages 29/47 of the record) were left behind. 4. On 19.6.1989 Sumitra Guwala, second wife moved application informing the department about death of Moti Lal on 13.5.1989. It is thereafter correspondences proceeded and department informed the first wife namely Saharaja Devi, resident of Allahabad which is shown in the record about the death of her husband. For the first time on 24.2.1995 i.e. after about six year applicant (Phool Chand) moved application for giving him compassionate appointment. 5. Before the present O.A. i.e. O.A. No. 1468 of 2010 which has been allowed on 10.12.2010 applicant approached the Tribunal thrice by filing O.A. No. 1039 of 1999 which was disposed of on 15.9.1999, O.A. No. 856 of 2000 which was disposed of on 7.11.2000 and O.A. No. 1255 of 2002 which was disposed of on 14.3.2006. All the times the Tribunal directed for passing of appropriate speaking orders and to consider the applicant’s claim. All the times the Tribunal directed for passing of appropriate speaking orders and to consider the applicant’s claim. The department passed orders time and again informing the applicant about consideration of his claim and his position in the list and marks so received and his place in the wait list and at the same time by orders dated 9.3.2010, 17.4.2010, 30.8.2007 rejecting his claim by assigning various reasons including the delay part as well. It is in the aforesaid background of the fact now the Tribunal by its judgment dated 10.12.2010 has finally allowed O.A. and gave positive direction for appointment of applicant, placing him at serial No. 1 by relaxing the age and by condoning the delay. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly application was filed by respondent No. 1 for the first time after about six years of the death of his father. It is further submitted that the deceased left behind two sons and one daughter (page 29/47 of the writ petition). 7. Argument is that giving of compassionate appointment is not absolute right of the claimant as providing of compassionate appointment under the scheme has a purpose. Submission is that the object is to enable the family to get over from financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole bread-earner and compassionate appointment cannot be claimed/offered after lapse of time and after crisis is over. 8. Argument is that deceased left behind him two sons and one daughter and he applied after about six years of the death and now after the death about 20-21 year has passed, therefore, direction of the Tribunal for giving compassionate appointment placing the respondent No. 1 at serial number 1 after relaxing the age and delay is totally unjustified. 9. At this stage it is to be noticed that after the death of Moti Lal the dispute of payment of pensionary benefits was also raised and mother of the applicant viz. Saharaja Devi filed O.A. No. 895 of 1999 in which the Tribunal on 15.9.2000 ruled that the second marriage is void and the daughter was permitted to be paid half of the benefit and half of the retiral benefit was permitted to be paid to Saharaja Devi and accordingly payments were ensured by the department. 10. Saharaja Devi filed O.A. No. 895 of 1999 in which the Tribunal on 15.9.2000 ruled that the second marriage is void and the daughter was permitted to be paid half of the benefit and half of the retiral benefit was permitted to be paid to Saharaja Devi and accordingly payments were ensured by the department. 10. It is also to be noticed that in paragraph 22 of the writ petition it is stated that Moti Lal remained absent from duty from 20.9.1981 upto 3.3.1989 (which may be 13.5.1989) i.e. upto the time of death, and therefore treating the case as a case under Dying in Harrness Rules is also not proper. Here the Court can hurriedly add that in these kind of matters the principle that who caused the delay, how it so happened, why it should not have happened, are not the matters of much investigation after such a long as that can be an issue for the purposes of fixing the liability and the effect on its proof. 11. At the same time the onus for proving about no delay in the move from applicant side and he/she not being in a position to meet the daily needs of the family is certainly on the claimant and it is on a specific pleading and proof in this respect the employer side will be called upon to meet and answer the same and thus on the basis of assumptions and suppositions, only by assuming the class being poor one, the continuance of the need for all the time and then providing of the employment after any number of years i.e. now after 20-21 years, as the case in hand will neither be proper nor will fit in with the scheme with which policy was enacted. 12. We are again to be reminded that getting employment on the death of an employee is not as a matter of right by the claimant and it is dependent on proof of certain relevant factors and thus by pointing out some slackness on the part of employer, irrespective of no pleading, no proof about need grant to the claimant will be a sheer charity, in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Something if is made available to a claimant over and above he is otherwise getting then certainly it will be help to him and to his family but he is not getting that by his merit, right but if he is to just get it by sheer grace then he has to immediately apply with a proof of his family position, his need and it is on satisfaction of these facts to the employer the claimant can get it and, therefore, the argument of the respondents just of taking lenient approach for his no fault, not founded by pleadings, evidence can be only a matter of sharing of the feeling and sorrow but that may not be executable in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court and also by this Court. 13. The Court can refer to some of the decisions of the Apex Court on the issue. In case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , following observations were made- “For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. In another decision given by the Apex Court in case of Union of India and others v. Bhagwan Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 476 , following observations were made- “6. The facts of this case disclose that on the date when Ram Singh died (12.9.1972) he had, besides the respondent, who was a minor then, two major sons and a wife. The two major sons and the wife did not seek any appointment on compassionate grounds. As stated by this Court in Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (SCC p. 470, para 9) “............. The two major sons and the wife did not seek any appointment on compassionate grounds. As stated by this Court in Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (SCC p. 470, para 9) “............. in all claims for appointment on compassionate ground, there should not be any delay in appointment, The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family, such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. The above decision was followed in Smt. Phooltvati v. Union of India and others, AIR (1991) SC 469. The reason for making compassionate appointment which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to, the family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family. Matters which should be considered while giving an appointment in public services on compassionate grounds have been laid down by a Bench of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, [1994] 4 SCC 138, to the following effect: (SCC pp. 139-40, para 2) “As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments not the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every cases, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made In the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.................” (Emphasis supplied) It is settled law, that even if the Court reaches the conclusion that the applicant has made out a case, all that the High Court or Administrative Tribunal can do, is only to direct the authority concerned to consider the claim of the applicant in accordance with relevant law or rules, if any. (See: State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali) (Emphasis supplied in this order) 8. It is evident, that the facts in this case point out, that the plea for compassionate employment is not to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis or distress which resulted as early as September, 1972. At the time Ram Singh died on 12.9.1972 there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. In this background, we are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in directing the Authorities to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds and to provide him with an appointment, if he is found suitable. We set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 22.2.1993. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. We set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 22.2.1993. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. In another decision given by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar, (2010)11 SCC 661 , the following observations were made by the Apex Court- “It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. In the case of State of J & K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 , following observations were made by the Apex Court- “We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought “compassion”, the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. There is another decision which has been recently given by the Apex Court in case of Union of India and another v. B. Kishore, JT 2011 (4) SC 77. In the aforesaid case employee died in September, 1993 and request for compassionate appointment was made in January, 1994. The Bench of High Court allowed writ petition. The observation as made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment is hereby quoted— “On going through the judgment passed by the High Court, it is evident that it is based on a complete misconception about the scheme of compassionate appointments. Contrary to the High Court’s observation, indigence of the departments of the deceased employee is the first pre-condition to bring the case under the scheme of “compassionate appointments”. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succour to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a state of destitution. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial deprivation is taken out from the scheme of compassionate appointments, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of an employee who died while in service which would be directly in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. In another recent decision given by the Apex Court in case of Local Administration Department and another v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, JT 2011 (4) SC 30, the same view has been reiterated. In another recent decision given by the Apex Court in case of Local Administration Department and another v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, JT 2011 (4) SC 30, the same view has been reiterated. In the aforesaid judgment of Local Administration Department (Supra) the application was moved after about five and half years of the death which happened in the year 1988. The claim of the applicant was denied and the writ petition was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge and then by the Division Bench the claim of the applicant was allowed. The Apex Court set aside Division Bench decision of the High Court and allowed the Civil Appeal. The observations as made in the recent decision of the Apex Court, noted below is hereby quoted- “ Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors such as the number of already pending claims under the scheme and availability of vacancies etc. normally the appointment may come after several months or even after two or three years. It is not our intent, nor it is possible to lay down a right time limit within which appointment on compassionate grounds must be made but what needs to be emphasised is that such an appointment must have some bearing on the object of the scheme. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to be sub-serve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. (Emphasis supplied by us) In the facts of the case, the municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that with whatever difficulty, the family of Meenakrisundaram had been able to tide over the first impact of his death. That being the position, the case of the respondent did not come under the scheme of compassionate appointments.” 19. At this stage some of the decisions, referred by the learned counsel for the respondents are also to be taken note. In case of Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) ESC 136 (All) (DB), the Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the department to examine the claim as the State Government has power to relax the time factor. This is not the situation here. 20. In case of Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) ESC 136 (All) (DB), the Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the department to examine the claim as the State Government has power to relax the time factor. This is not the situation here. 20. Here is the case where final direction has been given by the Tribunal to place the applicant at Section No. 1 for giving appointment after relaxing the age and other criteria. 21. Another decision in case of Jagwati Devi v. Union of India and others given by the Delhi High Court in 2003(1) ESC 637, has been referred in which application was rejected on the ground of change of policy and thus direction was given to consider the claim as stood before the change of the policy as application was filed earlier. 22. In another decision given in case of Bank of Maharashtra and another v. Manoj Kumar Dharia and another, 2010(126) FLR 1092, application was directed to be considered according to the old policy. In another decision given in case of T. Swamy Das v. Union of India, 2003(1) ATJ 367 the same view has been reiterated i.e. consideration of the application according to the old policy. 23. Thus from the aforesaid discussion following fact appears to be clear, subject to response and placing material from the respondent i.e. (i) Claim for appointment was made after about six years of death. (ii) Two sons of deceased were there at the time of death. (iii) In the original application filed by the lady half of the retiral benefit was permitted to be given to her and half to the daughter by the Tribunal. (iv) Deceased was absent from duty from 1981 upto 1989 i.e. upto the time of his death as stated in para 22 of the writ petition. (v) Thrice Tribunal gave direction for consideration upon which matter was considered and final orders were passed negativing the claim of the respondent. (vi) Now in all, about 20-21 year has passed and family survived. (vii) No specific pleading, evidence or proof is there about immediate or otherwise need. (viii) Delay, if any, now if is to be considered then who is at fault and why that occasioned will be another matter of probe. (vi) Now in all, about 20-21 year has passed and family survived. (vii) No specific pleading, evidence or proof is there about immediate or otherwise need. (viii) Delay, if any, now if is to be considered then who is at fault and why that occasioned will be another matter of probe. (ix) Department already negatived the claim of the respondent thrice and thus whether showing some leniency or grace giving of the compassionate appointment is a compulsion. (x) Claim of getting appointment is not as a matter of right and that is dependent on specific pleadings and establishing certain facts in the light of settled preposition. 24. In the light of the factual matrix about which apparently there is no dispute, I am of the prima facie view that the writ petition is to be entertained and a prompt decision on merits after giving time to the respondent to file counter-affidavit will be in the ends of justice. 25. Learned counsel who appeared for respondent No. 1 has not prayed for grant of time but as it is a fresh case, the Court is of the view that reasonable time is to be allowed to file counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is allowed six week time to file counter-affidavit. Writ petition is to be listed thereafter. As an interim measure the Court directs that operation of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2010 will remain stayed till next date of listing. Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—Heard Shri R.B. Singhal learned Senior Counsel and Assistant Solicitor General of India, assisted by Shri Vani Singh learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Shri L.M. Singh learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. After four innings of litigation, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, the petitioners have dragged the respondent No. 1 upto this Court, challenging the judgment and order dated 10.12.2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, in O.A. No. 1468 of 2007, Phool Chand Pal v. Union of India and others, in fourth inning of litigation. The respondent No. 1 has filed aforesaid O.A. against the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by Chief Engineer, Shilong Zone, Shilong whereby the application of respondent No. 1 for his compassionate appointment has been rejected. Earlier to the aforesaid application, the respondent No. 1 had also moved such applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal through O.A. Nos. The respondent No. 1 has filed aforesaid O.A. against the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by Chief Engineer, Shilong Zone, Shilong whereby the application of respondent No. 1 for his compassionate appointment has been rejected. Earlier to the aforesaid application, the respondent No. 1 had also moved such applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal through O.A. Nos. 1039 of 1999, 596 of 2000 and 1255 of 2002 and this was his fourth such application. 3. By impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2010 the application of respondent No. 1 Phool Chand Pal was allowed by the Tribunal, with the direction to the petitioners to place the respondent No. 1 in his original earlier position at serial No. 1 amongst the wait-listed candidates for compassionate appointment, and if there is no other applicant senior to the respondent No. 1 with respect to the date of application in that event his compassionate appointment shall be considered in the next meeting to be held for this purpose and the case of the applicant/respondent No. 1 will not be rejected on the reasons of delay and age of entry, if he was within the age limit or without age relaxation at the time of death of his father. 4. The petitioners who are Union of India and its Officers, have challenged the aforesaid order of Tribunal dated 10.12.2010 inter alia on the grounds contained in paras 22,23,24,25 and 26 of the writ petition that the father of the applicant remained continuously absent from the duty w.e.f. 20.9.1981 to 3.3.1989 till his death and died during his long absence hence treating his case in dying in harness is quite illegal, that the family of the deceased employee is getting family pension of Rs. 223/- per month besides death gratuity, received Rs. 1338/- and other terminal dues to the tune of Rs. 5000/-, and that the scheme for compassionate appointment is for immediate financial help to the deceased family and the family is not in distress because deceased employee expired in the year 1989 and the applicant submitted his application for the first time in the year 1995, that there are various decision of Hon. Supreme Court that compassionate appointment cannot be given as a matter of right and according to the departmental instruction it can be given only against 5% available vacancies. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon some decisions of the Apex Court in the cases; Civil Appeal No. 1045 of 2006, Union of India and others decided on April 6, 2011, Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006, Local Administrative Department and others v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, decided on April 5, 2011, State Bank of India and others v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 ; Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharastra and others, (2008) 11 SCC 384 ; State of J & K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 ; Dula Ram v. U.O.I. and others, (1997) 11 SCC 201 ; U.O.I. v. Bhagwan Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 476 , decided on 30.8.1995, and U.K. Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 . 5. Contrary to it, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Shri L.M. Singh, has raised various contentions in support of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and has also placed reliance upon the several authorities including Subhas Yadav v. State of U.P., 2011(1) ESC 136 (All) (DB), T. Swamy Das v. Union of India, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Writ Petition No. 5760 of 2000 decided on 10.1.2002 (DB) in Jagwati Devi v. Union of India, 2003(1) ATJ 367; Delhi High Court (D.B.), Bank of Maharashtra and another v. Manoj Kumar Deharia and another, 2003(1) ESC 636; 2010(126) FLR 1092, Km. Pinki Chauhan v. M.D., P.N.B. New Delhi, 2003(99) FLR 376 (Alld. HC). 6. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records I find that undisputedly the father of respondent No. 1 had died while in service of Union Government on 3.3.1989. It is also not in dispute that mother of the respondent No. 1 was informed about the death of his father on 24.2.1995 by the petitioners (concerned officer of Central Government), thereupon the mother of the applicant respondent No. 1 immediately made an application for compassionate appointment of respondent No. 1 on 13.3.1995. Thereafter vide letter dated 15.9.1995 the competent authority had asked the respondent No. 1 to submit duly filled prescribed proforma I and II alongwith willingness certificate, undertaking and certificate regarding source of income, in pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 1 submitted all requisite papers and documents in due course. Thereafter vide letter dated 15.9.1995 the competent authority had asked the respondent No. 1 to submit duly filled prescribed proforma I and II alongwith willingness certificate, undertaking and certificate regarding source of income, in pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 1 submitted all requisite papers and documents in due course. There upon the petitioner No. 5 forwarded the same to the petitioner No. 6 under intimation to the respondent No. 1. But after waiting for reasonable period, when appointment was not offered to him, he approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench by filing his first Original Application No. 1039 of 1999 which was decided on 15.9.1999 with a direction to the petitioners to decide the pending representation of respondent No. 1 within four months. Thereupon the petitioners processed the matter and decided the pending representation of respondent No. 1 vide order dated 3.12.1999 and informed the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 8th December 1999 (annexure No. 2 of the writ petition) stating therein that the application for compassionate appointment of the respondent No. 1 has been placed in seniority list of the Chief Engineer, Eastern Command, Calcutta and the seniority position of the applicant is at serial No. 52. It has also been mentioned in the said letter that presently compassionate appointment application of the year 1992 are being considered as per seniority and the applicant would be intimated when his turn would come as per seniority. 7. For ready reference, it would be useful to extract the letter dated 8th December, 1999 issued by the Garrison Engineer, as under: “Registered GarrisonEngineer 859 Engr Wks Section C/132 OA-1039/99/04 EIC 08 Dec 99 Shri Phool Chand Pal So MES-265073 Late Moti Lal 179, Uttari Lokhpur, Naini, PO: Naini, District Allahabad Uttar Pradesh. OA No. 1039/99 Filed by Shri Phool Chand v. Union of India and others. 1. Reference your letter dated 03 Dec 99, our letter 1025/46/E1A dated 11 Nov 99 and others of Hon;ble Mr. S.K.I. Naqvi, Member (J) CAT, Allahabad on the above case. 2. As per existing policy of CEEC Calcutta under their letter No. 131528/3A/1073/Engrs/E1C(2) dated 21 Dec 92, only 14.5 percent wastage vacancies of Group ‘C’ post is considered for compassionate ground appoint to the dependent of deceased of Govt. servant on seniority basis. 3. S.K.I. Naqvi, Member (J) CAT, Allahabad on the above case. 2. As per existing policy of CEEC Calcutta under their letter No. 131528/3A/1073/Engrs/E1C(2) dated 21 Dec 92, only 14.5 percent wastage vacancies of Group ‘C’ post is considered for compassionate ground appoint to the dependent of deceased of Govt. servant on seniority basis. 3. Your application submitted to this Works Section for compassionate appointment application dated 29 Dec 95, has already been progressed upto B-in-C;s Br, Army Headquarters, New Delhi and you have been placed in the seniority list of Chief Engineer Eastern Command Calcutta letter No. 131302/12/A116/Engrs/E1C(1) dated 22 June 99, wherein they have indicated that your position in the seniority list is at Srl. No. 52. Presently compassionate appointment applications of the year 1992 are being considered as per seniority. You will be intimated once your turn comes up as per seniority.” Sd/- Illegible [D Mukhopadhyay] Major Garrison Engineer” 8. It appears that feeling aggrieved by delayed and slow action of the petitioners, respondent No. 1 had filed another(second) application i.e. Original Application No. 596 of 2000 which was decided by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 7th November 2000, wherein the Tribunal observed that “from the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find a fit matter to direct the respondents to deviate from the practice and rules and departmental direction in this regard. However, it is provided that the applicant be given due consideration, which may be available to him, as per departmental direction and he be not discriminated any way against other claimants under this head”. 9. In pursuance of the said order of Tribunal, the competent authority, Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone vide his letter/order dated 9.3.2002 rejected the case of compassionate appointment of respondent No. 1, on the grounds that the family is receiving more than Rs. 1849/- as family pension per month as such it is above poverty line as per departmental norms and need for immediate assistance by way of compassionate appointment is lacking as death of Government servant occurred on 3.3.1989 i.e. more than 12 years back. A copy of which is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. 10. In this connection it would be useful to quote paragraphs 3 and 4 of the letter of Headquarters, Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone dated 9th March 2002 as under: “3. A copy of which is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. 10. In this connection it would be useful to quote paragraphs 3 and 4 of the letter of Headquarters, Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone dated 9th March 2002 as under: “3. According to available information, the following is the position/Status of the case: - (a) The death of Govt. Servant occurred on 3.3.1989. He was survived by his wife, one daughter and two sons. (b) The family is receiving more than 1849/- as family pension per month(the minimum amount). As such it is above the poverty line as per DOP&T norms. (c) The need for immediate assistance by way of compassionate employment to tide over the emergency and crisis is lacking in this case as the death of the Govt. servant occurred on 3.3.89 more than 12 years back. 4. After due circumspection and consideration of the circumstances of the case in the light of the enclosed guidelines of DOP& T and also various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and after a balanced and objective assessment of the totality of the circumstances of the case, the competent authority, it is regretted to mention, has not approved your case for compassionate appointment in this Department.” 11. Feeling aggrieved by said order/letter dated 9.3.2002, applicant/respondent No. 1 again filed third Original Application No. 1255 of 2002 before the Tribunal which was decided vide its judgment and order dated 4.3.2006 with the direction to the Department to consider the case of the applicant purely on merit in the next meeting. It was also directed that in case the applicant does not come within the merit, the same may be informed to the applicant by detailed order. A copy of the judgment and order dated 14.3.2006 passed by the Tribunal is on record as Annexure-5 of the writ petition. 12. For ready reference it would be appropriate to extract the observations and direction of the Tribunal in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of said judgment as under: “6. It would be seen that earlier, in 1996 all the formalities had been got fulfilled by the respondents, by addressing communication to the applicant. Again, in 1999 his case was registered according to ‘application seniority’ and he was kept in serial No. 52. At that time too there was no whisper about the delay in applying. It would be seen that earlier, in 1996 all the formalities had been got fulfilled by the respondents, by addressing communication to the applicant. Again, in 1999 his case was registered according to ‘application seniority’ and he was kept in serial No. 52. At that time too there was no whisper about the delay in applying. In September, 2000 when the counter-affidavit was filed, then also there was no whisper about the same. As such, the reason given for rejection of the case of the applicant does not appeal to logic. Again, the applicant has averred that the fact of the demise of his father was known only years after such demise. This was reflected in her first representation dated 13.3.1995 and all other actions, such as calling for other particulars were only in pursuance of the aforesaid letter dated 13.3.1995. As such, it can be safely assumed that any delay in filing the application has been condoned by the respondents. 7. The applicant had, some how, or the other, managed to live and study to some extent and he has been aspiring for a post to make his livelihood. The respondents do not seem to have considered the case at all on merit and their rejection was purely on the ground of delay in applying. At least once the application ought to have been considered on merit. It would have been a different matter, had the applicant been informed in 1995 itself about the delay, in which event, perhaps he would have tried for some alternate employment. Having progressed his case, having given a seniority No. to his application, if at the last moment, without considering the application on merit, if the respondents reject the case on the ground of delay in filing the application, the same is, to term in the mildest term, ‘arbitrary’. 8. The applicant has also filed written submission and annexed certain decisions of this Bench and other High Courts. These cases do support the case of the applicant to some extent. The decisions are as under : a. Order dated 20.4.2005 of CAT, Allahabad Bench in case of Jeewal Lal v. Union of India and others. b. T. Swamy Das v. Union of India and others, 2003 (1) ATJ 367. c. Km. Pinki Chauhan v. The Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and others. 2003 (99) ATJ 376. The decisions are as under : a. Order dated 20.4.2005 of CAT, Allahabad Bench in case of Jeewal Lal v. Union of India and others. b. T. Swamy Das v. Union of India and others, 2003 (1) ATJ 367. c. Km. Pinki Chauhan v. The Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and others. 2003 (99) ATJ 376. d. Jagwati Devi v. Union of India and others, 2003 (1) ESC (All) 636. 9. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant purely on merit in the next Meeting that may be convened to consider the pending cases of compassionate appointment and in case the applicant comes within the merit, on the basis of the prescribed norms, he may be considered for compassionate appointment, if need be by relaxation of the Rules relating to age, as the applicant by now may be over aged. No opinion on merit is expressed through this order. In case the applicant does not come within the merit, by a speaking and detailed order, the same be informed to the applicant. No cost. OA is disposed off.” 13. The petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid judgment and order of Tribunal dated 14.3.2006, instead thereof chose to accept and implement the same but at the same time instead of passing the order on merit the competent authority has passed the order dated 31.8.2007 contained in Annexure-8 of the writ petition, whereby the claim of the compassionate appointment of respondent No. 1 has again been rejected on various technical grounds as under : Mil Tele: 6721 HQ Chief Engineer Fax: 0364-2537640 Shillong Zone Email:shillongenrs@gmail.com Spread Eagle Falls Shillong-11 70601/25/SO/199/EIC(I) 31 Aug 2007 Shri Phool Chand Pal C/o Late Moti Lal Chowkidar 179, Uttari Lokhpur, Naini, PO: Naini Distt: Allahabad (U.P.) EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANT IN RESPECT OF PHOOL CHAND PAL S/O LATE MOTI LAL, CHOW OF GE 859 EWS ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS 1. Reference your application dated 29 Dec 1995 regarding employment on compassionate grounds. The request (representation) for compassionate appointment was examined by the competent authority of his Headquarters as per the extant Government Rules and Policies and the Hon’ble Supreme Court rulings on the subject. The relevant DOP & T instructions and Hon’ble Supreme Court rulings on the subject are enclosed. 2. The request (representation) for compassionate appointment was examined by the competent authority of his Headquarters as per the extant Government Rules and Policies and the Hon’ble Supreme Court rulings on the subject. The relevant DOP & T instructions and Hon’ble Supreme Court rulings on the subject are enclosed. 2. The scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds has been envisaged with the whole object of granting compassionate appointment to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The scheme does not necessarily imply that dependent of each and every deceased/medically boarded out/missing Govt. employee will be offered appointment on compassionate ground. It is pertinent to mention here that quota prescribed for the purpose of compassionate appointment is only 5% of the total D.R. Vacancies occurring in a year in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts and therefore no case is considered individually of unit, wise, but all the cases received from various units are considered by the Board of Officers constituted at the Headquarters as per the Government policy, to find out the most deserving cases in acute financial distress/more indigent in comparison to other similarly places cases, against the 5% quota of DR vacancies occurring in a given year. 3. Accordingly the Board of Officers take the various aspects as stipulated in MOD ID No. 19(4)/824-99/1998-D(Lab) dated 04 Mar 2001, such as family size including ages of children, amount of terminal benefits, amount of family pension, liability in terms of unmarried daughter(s), minor children etc. movable/immovable properties left by the deceased at the times of death, to find out the cases of acute financial distress/most deserving case in relative merit and recommends only the really deserving cases that too if clear vacancy meant for appointment on compassionate grounds exists within the ceiling of 5% DR vacancies. movable/immovable properties left by the deceased at the times of death, to find out the cases of acute financial distress/most deserving case in relative merit and recommends only the really deserving cases that too if clear vacancy meant for appointment on compassionate grounds exists within the ceiling of 5% DR vacancies. Further the, Committee considering a request appointment on compassionate grounds should take into account the position regarding availability of vacancy of such appointment and it should recommended appointment on compassionate ground only in a really deserving case and only if vacancy meant for appointment on compassionate grounds will be available within a year, that too within the ceiling of 5% prescribed for the purpose, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling in Judgment dated 4th May 1994 in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 525, wherein it has been held that “Offering appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired Govt Servant is legally impermissible and compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.” 4. According to the information available on records, the following is the position (status of the family of the deceased (MBO/Missing) Government servant: (a) The death/MBO/Missing of the Government servant occurred on 03 Mar 1989 His wife 02 sons and 01 daughter(s) survive him. The deceased (MBO/Missing) Govt. servant’s family received Rs. 6338/- as terminal benefits. At present they are in receipt of monthly pension of Rs. 223/-. 5. The Board of Officers at Army Headquarters after taking into account each aspect referred to above has considered your case alongwith other candidates. However, due to more deserving cases and few vacancies available, your case was not recommended by the BOO for appointment on compassionate ground. In view of this the competent authority is of the view that your case does not deserve employment assistance on compassionate grounds. 6. However, due to more deserving cases and few vacancies available, your case was not recommended by the BOO for appointment on compassionate ground. In view of this the competent authority is of the view that your case does not deserve employment assistance on compassionate grounds. 6. Therefore, after due circumspection and consideration in the light of the enclosed guidelines of DOP & % and various judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the appointment on compassionate grounds is not matter of right and after a balanced and objective assessment of the totality of the circumstances of the case including the decision of the Board of Officers at Army Headquarters, the competent authority has rejected the employment assistant to Shri Phool Chand Pal S/o Late Moti Lal of GE 859 Engr Wks Section on compassionate grounds. Yours faithfully SD/- Illegible (Ravi Sinha) SE Dir (Pers & Legal) Encls: As above For Chief Engineer Copy to: Engineers-in-Chief’s Branch - For information Integrated Headquarter of Mod (Army) New Delhi 110011 HQ Easter Command - For information Engineers Branch Fort William Kolkata-21 CWE Tezpur GE 859 EWS” 14. The aforesaid order passed by the competent authority was challenged by the respondent No. 1 by filing his fourth O.A. No. 1468 of 2007 before the Tribunal which was decided vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2010. From perusal of the same it transpires that after narrating the case of parties the Tribunal has precisely formulated the grounds on which the compassionate appointment of respondent No. 1 was denied by the competent authority in para 2. of the judgment as under : “2. The impugned order dated 31.8.2007 (Annexure A-1 to the OA) in a form of an essay brings out the following points : a. The objective of compassionate appointment to enable the family to tiled over sudden crises and to help the family to get over the emergency. b. The appointment is to be within 5% of the total direct recruit vacancy and all the vacancies are to be considered for being filled up at the Headquarters to find out most deserving cases. The guidelines followed are as per MOD ID No. 19(4)/824-99/1998-D (Lab) dated 9.3.2001, such as family size, properties left by the deceased and overall ceiling of 5% direct recruit vacancies. The guidelines followed are as per MOD ID No. 19(4)/824-99/1998-D (Lab) dated 9.3.2001, such as family size, properties left by the deceased and overall ceiling of 5% direct recruit vacancies. d. Compassionate appointment is not a right and if cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period irrespective of the financial condition of the family. e. Due to more deserving cases the case of the applicant was not recommended by the BOO for appointment on compassionate grounds.” 15. Thereafter in para 4 of the said decision the Tribunal has proceeded to notice para 26 of the counter-affidavit earlier filed by the petitioners in O.A. No. 596 of 2000. For ready reference it would be appropriate to quote paras 4 of the said decision as under : “4. The background preceding the impugned order has been described as above. It seems that the applicant was always held out a hope of an employment as is evident from the contents of para 26 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in OA No. 596/2000 being reproduced below. 26. That in reply to contents of para No. 4 (u) of the O.A., it is stated that the Department after receipt of completed application of the Applicant registered his name in the seniority list for consideration of employment of those who are dying in harness and accordingly the applicant will be given employment as per his seniority.” 16. In para 5 of the said decision the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the respondents before the Tribunal seem to have been shifting the grounds to somehow deny the appointment to the applicant for one reason or the other and even going beyond their affidavit. It has also been noticed that the applicant had applied prior to commencement of new policy limiting the appointment to the extent of 5% vacancies and held that in view of various decisions referred in the judgment the claim of compassionate appointment could not be rejected by the authorities on account of subsequent change of policy of compassionate appointment. It has also been noticed that the applicant had applied prior to commencement of new policy limiting the appointment to the extent of 5% vacancies and held that in view of various decisions referred in the judgment the claim of compassionate appointment could not be rejected by the authorities on account of subsequent change of policy of compassionate appointment. In support of his findings the Tribunal has placed reliance upon Jagwati Devi v. Union of India and others, 2003(1) ESC 636; T. Swami Das v. Union of India and others, 2003 (1) ATJ, 367; Bank of Maharashtra and another v. Manoj Kumar Deharia, 2010 (126) FLR 1092 and Smt. Sheela Devi v. Managing Director, Union Bank of India Bombay and others, 2007(2) ESC 1268 . 17. Thereafter the learned Tribunal has noticed the version of counter-affidavit in para 7 of the decision and while dealing with various decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court including Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 525 and few other cases in para 8, 9 and 10 of the decision held as under : “8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. There can be absolutely no dispute regarding law relating to the compassionate appointment as having been ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time to time such as in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 525 and few others. What however, causes anguish is the manner in which the appointment on compassionate grounds are handled in a closed and opaque manner without disclosing the number of vacancies available for each years, number and names of the candidates considered, the parameters prescribed for evaluating the overall merit of the applicant, the objective mechanism of putting grades to the parameters and finally the overall result sheet of all the candidates open to be seen and available to all so as to satisfy the applicant that their cases have been dealt with on fair, transparent, uniform and objective parameters without any discrimination and arbitrariness. 9. Unfortunately, the impugned order is deficient on all such requirements. The direction of the Tribunal to consider the case of the applicant on merit is not an invitation to the authorities to write an essay by selectively reproducing some rulings were as ignoring few others. 9. Unfortunately, the impugned order is deficient on all such requirements. The direction of the Tribunal to consider the case of the applicant on merit is not an invitation to the authorities to write an essay by selectively reproducing some rulings were as ignoring few others. The question of legal pronouncement comes into picture only where the facts are clear, the parameters are sound and practical, the evaluation is methodical and objective and transparency is beyond doubt as also the result are for all to see. 10. In view of the above observations the respondents are directed to place the applicant in his original earlier stated position, consider him at No. 1 position amongst the waitlisted candidates. If there is no other applicant senior to him with respect to the date of application and then consider him in the next meeting to be held for this purpose. Needless to mention that the justice and fair play demands that the result of the selection process on objective parameters to be adopted for this purpose, if not already in existence. The applicant’s case will not be rejected on the reasons of delay and age of entry, if he was within the age limit or without age relaxation at the time of death of his father. With these observations the authorities are also directed to inform the applicant his position amongst the waitlisted candidates and the expected time frame of his case coming up for consideration in the next meeting of competent committee for this purpose.” 18. At this juncture, it is necessary to point out that earlier to the impugned judgment the respondent No. 1 has also filed three Original Applications before Central Administrative Tribunal and in third original application No. 1255 of 2002 the Tribunal has directed vide its judgment and order dated 4.3.2006 to the petitioners/department to consider the case of applicant/respondent No. 1 purely on merit in the next meeting. The aforesaid judgment was not challenged by the petitioners before superior Court, instead thereof the petitioners have chosen to implement the same despite thereof, vide order dated 31st August, 2007, the competent authority has again rejected the claim of applicant/respondent No. 1 for his compassionate appointment on various grounds including the technical grounds which were earlier rejected by the Tribunal. The aforesaid judgment was not challenged by the petitioners before superior Court, instead thereof the petitioners have chosen to implement the same despite thereof, vide order dated 31st August, 2007, the competent authority has again rejected the claim of applicant/respondent No. 1 for his compassionate appointment on various grounds including the technical grounds which were earlier rejected by the Tribunal. The petitioners have decided the claim of applicant/respondent No. 1 vide order dated 31.8.2007 beyond the scope of earlier direction given by Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 4.3.2006 in O.A. 1255 of 2002 earlier filed by the respondent No. 1. 19. In this connection, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is that once the issue was concluded at higher forum the same cannot be re-agitated in remand proceeding and only that issue can be considered which has been remanded by the higher Court. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance was placed upon the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Coke Company v. Trade Tax Officer, 2005(6) SCC 796 and in Radha Raman Samant v. Bank of India and others, (2004) 1 SCC 605 . 20. In Radha Raman Samant v. Bank of India and others, (2004) 1 SCC 605 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that only that issue can be considered which have been remanded by Higher Court or authority. The pertinent observation made in para 12 of the decision is extracted as under : “12. . .. .. . . . Therefore, the learned Single Judge was bound to address only on one issue upon which the matter had been remanded. Thus, the Division Bench could not have overlooked these facts in the appeal arising from the order of the learned Single Judge on the second occasion after remand and need not have gone into the question as to whether the writ petition could have been entertained at all or not. Therefore, we are of view that the High Court could not have overlooked these facts and interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge.” 21. The same view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat & Co. v. Trade Tax Officer and another, (2005) 6 SCC 796 . The pertinent observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in para 19 of the decision is extracted as under : “19. . . . . . . . The same view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat & Co. v. Trade Tax Officer and another, (2005) 6 SCC 796 . The pertinent observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in para 19 of the decision is extracted as under : “19. . . . . . . . The Trade Tax Tribunal as early as on 31.3.2000 had held that the appellant had the locus standi to ask for the release of goods because the appellant was the owner of the goods. The decision of the Tribunal was not challenged by the respondents. The decision of the Tribunal not being challenged, the issue of title was concluded in the appellant’s favour. In the face of this order, it was not open to the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax on remand to reject the application of the appellant on the ground that it was not the owner of the goods. The High Court should have considered this aspect of the matter particularly when it had been expressly drawn to the High Court’s attention. The High Court was also precluded from re-deciding the same issue between the same parties.” 22. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, in my opinion, the petitioners could not travel beyond the scope of earlier judgment and order of Tribunal dated 4.3.2006 rendered in O.A. No. 1255 of 2002 while passing the order dated 31.8.2007. Thus the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by competent authority could also be quashed by Tribunal, merely on that ground alone, accordingly the impugned decision of Tribunal can be held to be justified for the aforesaid reason also, besides reasons given in the impugned judgment. 23. Now I would like to deal with the various submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners advanced against the impugned judgment and order of Tribunal dated 10.12.2010 herein after. 24. 23. Now I would like to deal with the various submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners advanced against the impugned judgment and order of Tribunal dated 10.12.2010 herein after. 24. In this connection the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of the applicant No. 1 remained continuously absent from duty w.e.f. 20.9.1981 to 3.3.1989 till his death and died during his long absence, hence, treating his case under dying in harness is quite illegal, appears to be wholly misplaced and cannot be accepted for the reason that it is for the first time in the writ petition, aforesaid factual controversy has been raised by the petitioners after litigating four innings before the Tribunal. The petitioners have never raised such point before the Tribunal earlier to it. It is not the case of petitioners that on account of alleged absence from duty w.e.f. 20.9.81 to 3.3.89 any disciplinary action was taken against the father of the applicant and/or he was removed or dismissed from service before his death. Contrary to it, as indicated hereinbefore, the application of respondent No. 1 made on 13.3.1995 for compassionate appointment was duly processed by the petitioners by asking the respondent No. 1 to furnish necessary documents in support of claim of compassionate appointment and after furnishing the same, vide order dated 3.12.1999, and letter dated 8.12.1999 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition) the applicant/respondent No. 1 was informed that his application for compassionate appointment has been placed in seniority list of Chief Engineer, Eastern Command Calcutta and his seniority position is at serial No. 52. It has also been mentioned in the said letter that presently compassionate appointment of the application of the year 1992 are being considered as per seniority and the applicant/respondent No. 1 would be intimated when his turn would come as per seniority. Not only this but in para 26 of the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioners in O.A. No. 596 of 2000 filed by the respondent No. 1, before the Tribunal, the petitioners have specifically stated that the department after receipt of completed application of the applicant registered his name in the seniority list for consideration of employment under dying harness Rules and accordingly the applicant will be given employment as per his seniority. Thus, in view of aforesaid assurance given by the petitioners, in my opinion, it is not open for them to raise such contention for the first time in the writ petition contrary to the stand earlier taken by them before the Tribunal and intimated to the respondent No. 1 also. In my view, the doctrine of estoppel shall also apply against the petitioners. 25. Further submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are that in view of various decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court right from Umesh Kumar Nagpal onward referred in preceding paragraphs, it is too late to offer compassionate appointment to the respondent No. 1 after lapse of so many years of death of father of applicant-respondent No. 1 and according to departmental instruction only 5% available vacancies can be offered for compassionate appointment and there are more deserving cases than the respondent No. 1, therefore, no such compassionate appointment can be offered to him in pursuance of impugned direction of Tribunal. In my opinion, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners seem to be apparently attractive but in substance, are wholly misplaced, therefore, have to be rejected. 26. Now at this juncture it would be useful to examine various decisions referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners and other relevant case laws. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976 , the Apex Court has held that “.....in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” (emphasis supplied) 27. The above decision was also followed in Phoolwati v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 469 , wherein it has been again reiterated that The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family. 28. 28. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , while dealing with the nature and object of the compassionate appointment, the posts against which, and period under which such appointment may be offered, in para 2, of the decision the Hon’ble Apex Court held that 'the whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate ground, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 29. . . . . . . . . . . . The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 29. In para 6 of the said decision Hon’ble Court, further held that; “For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 30. In Union of India and others v. Bhagwan Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 476 , one Ram Singh died on 12.9.1972. He left behind his wife, two major sons and respondent, a minor, aged about 12 years then. Respondent attained majority in the year 1980-81. Respondent passed higher secondary examination in the year 1983 stating that he attained majority in the year 1980-81. He sought appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected by orders dated 21.9.1987, 19.6.1990 and 11.6.1991. Authorities took the view that application was beyond period of limitation (five years), that the case of the respondent was not covered by the relevant rules, that at the time of demise of Ram Singh, there were two major sons of the deceased who did not seek employment and that the family was not in financial distress. Aforesaid orders were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the respondent. His application was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 22.2.1993. The Tribunal had quashed the orders assailed before it and directed the authorities to reconsider the application of respondent for appointment on compassionate ground and provide him with an appointment, if he is found suitable. Against the aforesaid order of Tribunal, Union of India and Railway authorities preferred appeal before the Apex Court. The Tribunal had quashed the orders assailed before it and directed the authorities to reconsider the application of respondent for appointment on compassionate ground and provide him with an appointment, if he is found suitable. Against the aforesaid order of Tribunal, Union of India and Railway authorities preferred appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has also noticed that the respondent was aged about 33 years at the time of making application and last application which was allowed by the Tribunal was one filed after 20 years after death of Ram Singh. While allowing the said appeal in para 8 of the decision, Apex Court held that “at the time Ram Singh died on 12.9.1972 there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty.” 31. In Dhalla Ram v. Union of India and others, (1997) 11 SCC 201 , the father of the petitioner died on 13.12.1965 on which date the petitioner was below 6 years. He attained majority, 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. His application was rejected on 14.7.1988. He filed Original Application on 12.7.1993. In view of the long delay in filing application before Tribunal after refusal by the Government, it was held that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation. 32. In State of J & K and others v. Sajad Ahmad Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 , the father of Sajad Ahmad Mir, respondent died on 6.3.1987 while in service. The applicant respondent applied on 20.9.1991 for appointment on compassionate ground. According to the applicant respondent, his case was forwarded by the authorities with recommendation in 1993 to give him appointment on compassionate ground. It was also his case that the Administrative Department recommended to appoint the applicant after relaxation of qualification as well as in age. According to the applicant/ respondent, on or about 8-6-1999, the Administrative Department conveyed its decision to the Chief Engineer, Electric Maintenance and RE Wingh, Srinagar that the request of the applicant could not be acceded to and no appointment could be given. According to the applicant/ respondent, on or about 8-6-1999, the Administrative Department conveyed its decision to the Chief Engineer, Electric Maintenance and RE Wingh, Srinagar that the request of the applicant could not be acceded to and no appointment could be given. Being aggrieved by the said decision, a writ petition was filed by the applicant which came up for hearing before a Single Judge, wherein a detailed affidavit was filed by the authorities contending, inter alia, that the decision has already been taken in 1996 that compassionate appointment could not be given to the applicant and the said decision was communicated on 26.3.1996 whereas the writ petition was filed in 1999 and thus, there was gross delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching the Court. It was also contended that the applicant was not eligible and qualified for appointment. The learned Single Judge after considering the relevant facts and the reply-affidavit held that the decision was taken in March 1996 not to appoint the applicant on compassionate ground and he was informed accordingly. The applicant had never challenged that decision. What was done by the authorities in 1999 was merely reiteration of the decision taken in 1996. The writ petition was dismissed accordingly. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order before Division Bench which allowed the appeal of the applicant. Feeling aggrieved against which the Authorities approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court has held that in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was also right in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and latches by holding that the applicant had not done anything for a considerable period after March 1996, when his claim was rejected even though he was informed about the decision and was very much aware of it. 33. In Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharastra and others, (2008) 11 SCC 384 , the appellant therein was the widow of one Yunus Dastagir Mulani, who was a peon working in the respondent, a vocational institution. It is a public charitable trust. The appellant’s husband expired on 6.9.1996. She filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. As no response thereto was received, she made representation. The second respondent, however, declined to give any appointment on compassionate grounds to the appellant. She filed a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed. It is a public charitable trust. The appellant’s husband expired on 6.9.1996. She filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. As no response thereto was received, she made representation. The second respondent, however, declined to give any appointment on compassionate grounds to the appellant. She filed a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that In this case, the respondent is a charitable institution. It is run on Government aid. It cannot afford to appoint persons in a post which has not been sanctioned. It has not been denied or disputed that one Arun Uttareshwar has already been appointed in place of the deceased husband of the appellant. It does not matter as to whether the said appointment has been approved by the State or not in as much as if it has not been done, on the basis of the policy decision contained in its Resolution dated 31.12.2002, the same cannot be considered to be of much significance, particularly, in view of the fact that the appellant’s husband died as far back as on 6.9.1996 and the vacancy had been filed up in the year 1997. Furthermore, about twelve years have passed. The appellant’s son is aged about 20 years and daughter is aged about 16 years. Therefore, they have become major. The appellant herself would be aged about 38 years now. She cannot be given any appointment at this stage. 34. In State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 , the applicability of old scheme for compassionate appointment, vis-a-vis new substituted scheme for ex gratia payment, was under consideration before the Apex Court. While dealing with the nature and scope of compassionate appointment, and impact of new scheme for such appointment, in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the said decision the Apex Court held as under: “8. . . . . . . . .The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. . . . . . . . .The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. 9. Normally, the three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appoint are: (i) an application by a dependent family member of the deceased employee; (ii) fulfilment of the appointment ; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. If a scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member, on the death of any employee, without any of the aforesaid requirements, it can be said that the scheme creates a right in favour of the family member for appointment on the date of death of the employee. In such an event the Scheme in force at the time of death would apply. 10. On the other hand, if a scheme provides that on the death of an employee,a dependent family member is entitled to appointment merely on making of an application, whether any vacancy exists or not, and without the need to fulfil any eligibility criteria, then the scheme creates a right in favour of the applicant, on making the application and the Scheme that was in force at the time when the application for compassionate appointment was filed, will apply. But such schemes are rare and in fact, virtually nil. 11. Normal schemes contemplate compassionate appointment on an application by a dependent family member, subject to the applicant fulfilling the prescribed eligibility requirements, and subject to availability of a vacancy for making the appointment. Under many schemes, the applicant has only a right to be considered for appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfils all the eligibility criteria; and the selection is made of the most deserving among the several competing applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. Under many schemes, the applicant has only a right to be considered for appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfils all the eligibility criteria; and the selection is made of the most deserving among the several competing applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. In all these schemes there is a need to verify the eligibility and antecedents of the applicant or the financial capacity of the family. There is also a need for the applicant to wait in a queue for a vacancy to arise, or for a Selection Committee to asses the comparative need of a large number of applicants so as to fill a limited number of earmarked vacancies. 12. Obviously, therefore, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, up to the date of consideration may have to be taken into account. As none of the applicants under the scheme has a vested right, the scheme that is in force when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable. 13. Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts. 35. In Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006, Local Administration Department and another v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, decided on 5th April 2011, the fact was that respondents father worked as a Watchman in Karaikal Municipality. He died on November 22, 1988. He left behind a widowed wife and two sons, including respondent who was 11 years old at that time. The wife of the deceased, whose age at the time of the death of her husband was 39 years, did not make any request for her appointment on compassionate grounds. After about five and half years of his father’s death, the respondent passed the S.S.L.C. examination in April 1993. And then, for the first time on July 29, 1993, the respondent;s mother made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds. After about five and half years of his father’s death, the respondent passed the S.S.L.C. examination in April 1993. And then, for the first time on July 29, 1993, the respondent;s mother made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds. No action was possible on this application since the respondent was still a minor. Later on, another application was made for his appointment on compassionate grounds after 7 years and six months of the death of his father. Failing to get a favourable response to his application, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The same was disposed of by the Single Judge with a direction to the authorities to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds afresh and pass an order on his application within four months. The Municipality rejected the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment vide order dated 19.4.2000. He once again went to the High Court. Single Judge of the High Court, rejected the writ petition. But an intra-Court appeal filed by the respondent was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30th April 2004 and the Municipality was given the direction to appoint the respondent within three months from the date of the order. Feeling aggrieved against which the Municipality went to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court allowed the appeal filed by the Municipality accepting the reasons given by the Municipality for rejecting the claim of respondent that on the death of deceased employee his wife did not make any request for appointment and this showed that the demise of the concerned employee had not caused any serious financial crisis in the family. In case she would have made a request for appointment on compassionate grounds, her application might have been considered giving her relaxation of age and academic qualification. Another reason was that following the death of employee, the family was given Rs. 26,674/- as terminal benefits besides family pension to the widow. Thus, the dependants of the deceased were not left completely without any financial resources. 36. In Civil Appeal No. 1045 of 2006, Union of India and another v. B. Kishore, decided on 6th April 2011. The wife of respondent K. Janaki died on September 1, 1993 while giving birth to their second child. At that time, she was working as Senior Accountant in the Office of the Directorate of Postal Accounts, Madras. 36. In Civil Appeal No. 1045 of 2006, Union of India and another v. B. Kishore, decided on 6th April 2011. The wife of respondent K. Janaki died on September 1, 1993 while giving birth to their second child. At that time, she was working as Senior Accountant in the Office of the Directorate of Postal Accounts, Madras. On September, 21, 1993, the respondent made application for payment of her death-cum-terminal dues. A rival claim was raised by the mother of the deceased but the respondent was able to obtain succession certificate and on that basis he got payment of a sum of Rs. 71,000/- as death cum-retirement gratuity of his deceased wife, in addition to a sum of Rs. 2,998/- per month as family pension. On January 11, 1994, the respondent made the request for compassionate appointment but he was informed by the concerned departmental authorities that his claim for compassionate appointment would be considered only after settlement of the rival claims for payment of the death-cum-terminal dues of K. Janaki. After payment of the monetary dues to the respondent, his claim for appointment on compassionate basis was taken up and he was asked to submit proof of passing the S.S.L.C. examination. On July 9, 1996, the respondent made another representation for appointment on compassionate grounds. His case was finally considered by the Circle Selection Committee and he was informed by letter dated February 26, 1998 that he was not found entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds because he was not considered to “in indigent circumstances”. Respondents challenged aforesaid order before the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench which has dismissed his application vide order dated July 16, 1998. Against the order of Tribunal respondent went to High Court. Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition with the direction to the appellant to include his name in the list of candidates waiting for appointment on compassionate basis. 37. Feeling aggrieved by the order of High Court, Union of India preferred appeal before Apex Court. After referring the scheme of Central Government and taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court, allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. The pertinent observations made in para 9 and 11 of the decision are as under : “9. After referring the scheme of Central Government and taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court, allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. The pertinent observations made in para 9 and 11 of the decision are as under : “9. The case of the respondent clearly did not come under the revised and consolidated scheme formulated by Office Memorandum dated October 9, 1998, that had come into force when his case came up for consideration before the High Court. Even otherwise and without any reference to the Office Memorandum dated October 9, 1998, the case of the respondent does not meet or satisfy the basic object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds. 11. It further appears that an important and relevant fact was completely missed out in considering the respondent’s claim for appointment on compassionate basis. From the records it appears that in the verification appended to his OA before the Tribunal he gave his age as 58 years in June, 1998. Unless his age is wrongly stated in the verification to the OA, he would be 54 years of age when he made the application for compassionate appointment and 61 years old when the High Court allowed his Writ Petition. In other words, he was already beyond the age of superannuation and there was no question of his appointment on compassionate ground or on any other grounds.” 38. Before I proceed to deal further with the case, it would be useful to refer some decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of precedential value of a decision herein after. In State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Shekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-13 of the decision has observed as under : “A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it.” 39. In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and others, (1987) 1 SCC 213 : AIR 1987 SC 1073 (vide para 18) Hon’ble Apex Court observed : “The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and others, (1987) 1 SCC 213 : AIR 1987 SC 1073 (vide para 18) Hon’ble Apex Court observed : “The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it.” 40. In State Financial Corporation and another v. M/s Jagdamba Oil MIlls and another, AIR 2002 SC 834 , while dealing with the precedential value of decision the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-19, 20, 21 and 22 observed as under : “19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, (1951 AC 737 at P. 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: “The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge.” 20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co, 1970 (2) All ER 294 Lord Reid said, “Lord Atkin’s speech.......is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge.” 20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co, 1970 (2) All ER 294 Lord Reid said, “Lord Atkin’s speech.......is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances.” Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: “One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament.” And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537, Lord Morris said: “There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.” 21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 22. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have beome locus classicks : “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.” xxx xxx xxx “Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.” 41. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd and others, (2003) 2 SCC 111 : ( AIR 2003 SC 511 ), the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-59 of the decision observed as under : “59. A decision, as is well known, is an authority for which it is decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd and others, (2003) 2 SCC 111 : ( AIR 2003 SC 511 ), the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-59 of the decision observed as under : “59. A decision, as is well known, is an authority for which it is decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. See Smt. Ram Rakhi v. Union of India and others, (AIR 2002 Delhi 458); Delhi Administration (NCT of Delhi) v. Manoharlal ( AIR 2002 SC 3088 ); Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another, (2002 (1) JT (SC) 482) and Dr. Nalini Mahajan etc. v. Director of Income-tax (Investigation) and others, (2002) 257 ITR 123 ).” 42. In view of legal position stated by Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time right from Sushma Gosai’s case (supra), Umesh Kumar Nagpal’s case (supra) and Raj Kumar’s case (supra) there can be no quarrel with the proposition that in all the claims for compassionate appointment there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family, therefore, such appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. The posts in classes III or IV which are the lowest posts, can alone be offered for compassionate appointment. The compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. As such the claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to specific scheme framed by the employer therefor and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. The employer may wind up or modify the scheme at any time, depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts. The appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished or withdrawn. Pending application seeking appointment under abolished scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The employer may wind up or modify the scheme at any time, depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts. The appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished or withdrawn. Pending application seeking appointment under abolished scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. Where earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of new scheme will apply even in respect of pending applications. 43. It is also well settled from the decisions referred hereinbefore that the Courts should not place reliance on a decision without discussing it as to how the factual situation fits in with the facts situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts in that case. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudhansu Shekhar Misra’s case (supra) and in Ambica Quarry Works case (supra) a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. In the matter of applying precedent in the words of Lord Denning “each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. The precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.” 44. Now I have to examine the question of delay in the matter. In order to examine this question Court have to see which party has caused delay in matter of compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute as stated earlier that the father of the petitioner had died on 3.3.1989 while in service of the petitioners (Union of India). Now I have to examine the question of delay in the matter. In order to examine this question Court have to see which party has caused delay in matter of compassionate appointment. It is not in dispute as stated earlier that the father of the petitioner had died on 3.3.1989 while in service of the petitioners (Union of India). It is also not in dispute that mother of applicant/respondent No. 1 was informed about the death of his father on 24.2.1995 by the petitioners, thereupon the mother of the applicant/respondent No. 1 immediately made application for compassionate appointment of respondent No. 1 on 13.3.1995. Thereafter vide letter dated 15.9.1995 the competent authority had asked the respondent No. 1 to submit duly filled up form alongwith the requisite papers regarding eligibility, willingness certificate and certificate regarding source of income, in pursuant thereto the respondent No. 1 submitted the same in due course, but after waiting for a reasonable period when appointment was not offered to him he approached Central Administrative Tribunal by filing his first O.A. No. 1039 of 1999 which was decided on 15.9.1999 with a direction to the petitioners to decide the pending representation/application of compassionate appointment of the respondent No. 1. Thereupon the petitioners processed the matter and decided the pending representation of respondent No. 1 vide order dated 3.12.1999 and informed the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 8.12.1999 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition) stating therein that the application for compassionate appointment of respondent No. 1 has been placed in seniority list of Chief Engineer Eastern Command, Calcatta and seniority position of applicant/respondent No. 1 is at serial No. 52. It has also been mentioned in the said letter that presently compassionate appointment application of year 1992 are being considered as per seniority and he will be informed when his turn would come. While taking note of the aforesaid facts, learned Tribunal, while deciding third O.A. No. 1255 of 2002 filed by the respondent No. 1, vide order dated 14th March, 2006 (contained in Annexure-5 of the writ petition), held that if any delay was caused in approaching the authority by the applicant, the same has been condoned by the petitioners. While taking note of the aforesaid facts, learned Tribunal, while deciding third O.A. No. 1255 of 2002 filed by the respondent No. 1, vide order dated 14th March, 2006 (contained in Annexure-5 of the writ petition), held that if any delay was caused in approaching the authority by the applicant, the same has been condoned by the petitioners. The aforesaid order was not challenged by the petitioners before this Court or any other superior Court, instead thereof they have accepted the version of Tribunal, therefore, in wake of these facts and circumstances of the case I am also of the same opinion that the applicant/respondent No. 1 did not cause any delay in approaching the concerned authority for his compassionate appointment. If any delay was caused by him, the same has been condoned by the petitioners/competent authority. 45. From the aforesaid letter dated 8.12.1999 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition) it is also clear that by the time of writing the said letter, the petitioners were considering the compassionate appointment application of year 1992 by the end of year 1999. Thus, they themselves were late in deciding the application for compassionate appointment atleast for seven years at that time. It is not clear from the said letter that how much further time they may take for reaching and deciding the applications of compassionate appointment of year 1995, when the respondent No. 1 has moved such application, as such the aforesaid inaction on the part of the petitioners, without any lawful justification, in my considered opinion, was contrary to the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment, therefore, on this count also, the respondent No. 1 cannot be held guilty for causing delay in the matter. 46. It is also necessary to point out that due to delay caused by the petitioners in offering the appointment to respondent No. 1, he approached the Tribunal in the year 1999, and since then he was compelled to approach the Tribunal four times but in spite of repeated directions of Tribunal as indicated herein before the petitioners have denied the appointment to the applicant/respondent No. 1 on one pretext and other by changing their stand from time to time as held by the Tribunal in the impugned order. It is also well settled that no party can be prejudiced by the acts of the Court. It is also well settled that no party can be prejudiced by the acts of the Court. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that delay caused during the pendency of litigation before the Tribunal and in disposal of claim of compassionate appointment of the applicant/respondent No. 1 by the competent authority, both are liable to be ignored and cannot be taken into account to deny the appointment to the applicant/respondent No. 1. It is also for the simple reason that if the delay caused by employer in disposal of application for compassionate appointment is taken to be a justification for denying the compassionate appointment, then the employer can always keep the application pending for considerably long time and thereafter would deny the appointment on that ground. Thus, in my view, the parties in proceeding cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrongful action. 47. Thus, the question of delay can be examined from an angle to find out which party is guilty of causing delay and after undertaking such exercise, if the employer could show sufficient justification in delaying the matter, such as, on account of non-availability of vacancy etc., in my view, only in that eventuality, the delay may be taken to be a justification for offering belated appointment and the applicants in queue shall wait for their turn, but at the same time delay caused by the employer in disposal of claim for compassionate appointment cannot be held to be a justification for rejecting claim for such appointment unless the claim is otherwise liable to be rejected on merit under the scheme. Viewing the matter from aforesaid angle, in this case, I find that the employer has utterly failed to demonstrate any justifiable ground for denying the compassionate appointment to the respondent No. 1 either before the Tribunal or before this Court, therefore, I am not inclined to take different view in the matter than taken by the Tribunal. 48. Viewing the matter from aforesaid angle, in this case, I find that the employer has utterly failed to demonstrate any justifiable ground for denying the compassionate appointment to the respondent No. 1 either before the Tribunal or before this Court, therefore, I am not inclined to take different view in the matter than taken by the Tribunal. 48. So for as appointment under 5% ceiling limit of vacancies of the direct recruitment and rejection of claim of compassionate appointment of the respondent No. 1 on merit are concerned, it is necessary to point out that the employer has not produced the old and new schemes for such appointment either before the Tribunal or before this Court to enable the Court to examine the same as to whether old scheme, which was in force at the time of death of father of the applicant and at the time of moving of the application for compassionate appointment, had conferred any vested right for compassionate appointment and/or for consideration of such appointment under said scheme. The employer has also not produced the new scheme to enable the Court to examine the content and scope of the scheme. 49. The employer has also not produced the new scheme to enable the Court to examine the content and scope of the scheme. 49. Besides this, no other materials have been shown either before the Tribunal or before this Court by the petitioners to establish that their action was fair and proper on merit as earlier directed by the Tribunal, that is why, vide para-8 and 9 of the impugned order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Tribunal, in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly observed that, “There can absolutely be no dispute regarding law relating compassionate appointment as having been ruled out by Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time such as in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 525 and few others, what however causes anguish is the manner in which the appointment on compassionate grounds are handled in a close and opaque manner without disclosing the number of vacancies available for each year, number and names of candidates considered, the parameters prescribed for evaluating over all merit of the applicant, the objective mechanism of putting grades to the parameters and finally over all result sheet of all the candidates open to be seen and available to all so as to satisfy the applicant that their cases have been dealt with on fair, transparent, uniform and objective parameters without any discrimination and arbitrariness. Unfortunately the impugned order is deficient on all such requirements. The direction of the Tribunal to consider the case of applicant on merit is not an invitation to the authorities to write an essay by selectively reproducing some rulings whereas ignoring few others. The question of legal pronouncement comes into picture only where the facts are clear, the parameters are sound and practical, the evaluation is methodical and objective and transparency is beyond doubt as also the result are for all to see,”. In this view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to take different view in the matter. 50. In this view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to take different view in the matter. 50. Thus in view of forgoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that in view of letter dated 8.12.1999 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition), whereby the applicant/respondent No. 1 was informed by the petitioners that his application has been placed in seniority list of Chief Engineer, Eastern Command, Calcutta and his seniority position is at serial No. 52 and further that presently compassionate appointments of the applicants of the year 1992 are being considered as per seniority and the applicant/respondent No. 1 would be intimated when his turn would come inasmuch as in view of positive assurance given by the petitioners, vide paragraph-26 of the counter-affidavit filed by them in O.A. No. 596 of 2000 earlier filed by respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, whereby the petitioners have specifically stated that the department after receipt of completed application of applicant registered his name in the seniority list for consideration of employment under Dying-in-Harness Rules and accordingly the applicant will be given employment as per his seniority as noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 10.12.2010, it is not open for the petitioners to take any contrary stand in subsequent applications filed by respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal than that of earlier taken by them, as the doctrine of estoppal shall apply against them. 51. In this connection, it is also to be noted that in view of aforesaid assurance given by the petitioners to the applicant/respondent No. 1, he has pursued the matter before the authorities for a considerable long time and thereafter before the Tribunal under legitimate expectation for compassionate appointment and ultimately after succeeding in all the four innings of litigation before the Tribunal, in my opinion, it is not open for the petitioners to say that it is too late to offer appointment to the applicant on compassionate basis as the need of such appointment is over. It is no doubt true that employer may wind-up or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of vacancies with an intimation to the applicants, but at the same time it is not open for the employer to keep the matter pending for considerably long time, and further invite the dependants of the deceased employee to indulge in endless litigation on one pretext and other and thereafter at last take a ground of delay, and need of compassionate appointment. In such backdrop of the case where the action of employer is not fair, transparent and based on objective consideration instead thereof employer itself circumvents or intended to defeat the object of the scheme of the compassionate appointment on one pretext and other, this Court would be the last Court to approve such approach of the employer-petitioners of the instant case. In my view, the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hand, therefore, in given facts and circumstances of the case, it is very difficult for me to exercise equity jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners for the reason that in such event of the matter applicant-respondent No. 1 would suffer irreparable loss and injury. In case, the plea taken by the petitioners/employer is accepted, it would be a punishment to the applicant-respondent No. 1 without his fault rather for others fault. It is a case, where the petition should be dismissed with heavy cost but in order to give quietus to the litigation, I do not propose to impose any cost upon the petitioners. 52. There is nothing on record that any other family member of deceased Government servant was earning member at the time of his death or deceased had left sufficient property, terminal dues and family pension to enable the family to sustain without any assistance of compassionate appointment, thus, having regard to the financial condition of the family of the applicant/respondent No. 1 and meagre amount of the pension received by his mother, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the applicant/respondent No. 1 is not fit person to be appointed on compassionate basis and on account of more deserving cases of other persons neither shown to the Tribunal nor shown to this Court, he may be denied compassionate appointment by the petitioners. 53. 53. Further It is not in dispute that at the time of moving application for compassionate appointment the applicant was within the prescribed age limit and eligible for such class III or class IV employment under the Central Government and it is also not the case of the petitioners that by now the applicant has attained such age under which he cannot be given employment by the petitioners by relaxing his age under the scheme for compassionate appointment, if by now he has crossed upper age limit of Government employment as under such scheme in order to relieve the hardship of family of deceased Government employee in distress the relaxation in upper age limit is also permissible. In backdrop of these facts, in my view, the Tribunal has rightly held that merely because of the reason that the applicant had, some how, or the other, managed to live and study to some extent and family has sustained by now, it cannot be held that, it is not in distress, so as to warrant compassionate appointment to a member of his family, as the family has pulled on by now without any assistance of compassionate appointment. In my opinion, mere biological survival and sustenance of the family of the deceased Government servant by now, in given facts of the case, would not be sufficient to deny the compassionate appointment to the respondent No. 1. 54. Apart from it, there is nothing on record to show that the members of family of the deceased Government servant are leading average dignified life above the poverty line. Payment of terminal dues to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and death-cum-gratuity of Rs. 1338/- with Rs. 1849/- per month family pension to the family of deceased Government servant now a days, in my opinion, are not sufficient to sustain the family of the applicant. Treating such amount to be sufficient to sustain a family like family of the applicant would be mockery of individual’s dignity and promise to social and economic justice to the people by our Constitution, which strives to establish the India as a welfare state. 55. Treating such amount to be sufficient to sustain a family like family of the applicant would be mockery of individual’s dignity and promise to social and economic justice to the people by our Constitution, which strives to establish the India as a welfare state. 55. In given facts and circumstances of the case, the decisions referred hereinbefore and cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion, are quite distinguishable on facts and can be of no assistance to the case of petitioners as in the words of Lord Denning “each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. The precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice”. 56. Thus, in given facts and circumstances of the case, any indulgence of this Court would again delay and detain the issue and further defeat the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment, therefore, in order to give quietus to the endless litigation, in my view, it would be in the interest of justice not to interfere in the impugned order of Tribunal, in exercise of extra-ordinary equitable writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as in totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed afresh without calling any response from the applicant-respondent, who has been heard through his counsel. —————