Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137550-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19866 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sachin @ Sachin Singh Respondent :- Union of India and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mani Shanker Pandey, Rama Nand Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Bharat Pratap Singh, Rajesh Tripathi Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 03.05.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('Tribunal'), whereby the Original Application ('OA'), filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, has been dismissed. 2. Father of the petitioner was working on the post of Sub Staff in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station, Chandi Nagar, District- Baghpat, when he expired on 12.06.2004. 3. The application filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected by the order impugned, before the Tribunal, dated 10.05.2018/14.05.2018. 4. The plea raised by the petitioner was contested by the respondents with the submissions that mother of the petitioner was accorded compassionate appointment, however, she did not join on the post and therefore, in terms of applicable Rules, compassionate appointment cannot be accorded. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and referring to series of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the parameters for considering the issues pertaining to compassionate appointment and referring to the instructions issued by the respondents in this regard, came to the conclusion that after a long lapse of time, the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment and that once his mother was accorded appointment and she did not join, rejection of the prayer made in this regard cannot be faulted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the OA. Submissions were made that though the father of the petitioner died in the year 2004, appointment was accorded to petitioner's mother in the year 2014 and as she was required to look after the household including minor children, she could not accept the appointment and on that count, the rejection of petitioner's application seeking compassionate appointment was not justified. 7. Counsel for the respondents, with reference to the consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment dated 16.01.2013, submitted that the denial of appointment cannot be faulted as once the mother of the petitioner was offered appointment and she declined, there is no provision for offering appointment to someone else that also after passage of over 14 years since the death of the employee and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The undisputed facts are that the father of the petitioner died while in service on 12.06.2004, petitioner's mother was not only accorded appointment, on her not joining the duties on the place of posting within the stipulated time, the time for joining was extended along with the stipulation that on failure to join within the extended period, the offer of appointment will automatically stands cancelled, however, the mother of the petitioner did not join pursuant to the appointment/extension granted. After about more than 3 years, the petitioner sought compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the order impugned. The relevant instructions reads as under: "15. REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN POST/PERSON When a person has been appointed on compassionate grounds to a particular post, the set of circumstances, which led to such appointment, should be deemed to have ceased to exist. Therefore, -- (a) he/she should strive in his/her career like his/her colleagues for future advancement and any request for appointment to any higher post on considerations of compassion should invariably be rejected. (b) an appointment made on compassionate grounds cannot be transferred to any other person and any request for the same on consideration of compassion should invariably be rejected." 10. A perusal of the above would reveal that the same deals with seeking change in person for compassionate appointment, wherein under Clause (b), it has specifically been provided that an appointment made on compassionate ground cannot be transferred to any other person and any request in this regard would be invariably rejected. 11. In view of the above fact situation, when despite offer of appointment and extension granted to join the duties, the mother of the petitioner did not join, the claim to seek compassionate appointment apparently came to an end. The very fact that despite offer of appointment, the mother of the petitioner chose not to join, the claim made after over 3 years by the petitioner and after 14 years since the death of the bread earner, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding necessity of claiming compassionate appointment within the stipulated time on account of the very purpose for seeking compassionate appointment, the rejection by the respondents cannot be faulted. 12. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad