Facts of the Case

The dispute concerned a claim for compassionate appointment by the first respondent, Syed Ashfaq Ahmed. His father had died on 07.07.2003. Since his case was not considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, by filing O.A. No. 527 of 2011.

By order dated 25.04.2012, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the petitioners to appoint the respondent on compassionate grounds. Aggrieved by that direction, the Union of India, Ministry of Mines, and the Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, filed the writ petition before the Telangana High Court.

The High Court had earlier, by order dated 17.09.2012, suspended the operation of the Tribunal’s order. When the writ petition was finally considered in 2022, the Court noted the substantial passage of time since the death of the respondent’s father.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising for consideration were:

  1. Whether a direction for compassionate appointment could effectively be sustained or granted after a prolonged lapse of time from the death of the employee.
  2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 25.04.2012, directing appointment of the respondent on compassionate grounds, could continue to operate in the circumstances prevailing at the time of final adjudication.
  3. Whether, due to the efflux of time, the High Court could still direct the petitioners to consider or grant compassionate appointment.
  4. Whether the Tribunal’s order warranted interference in exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 527 of 2011, under which they had been directed to appoint the first respondent on compassionate grounds.

The writ petition sought a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Tribunal’s order dated 25.04.2012 and sought quashing of the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.

The petitioners also sought suspension of the Tribunal’s order during the pendency of the writ petition. The High Court had, in fact, suspended operation of that order on 17.09.2012.

Important note: The final order is brief and does not record any more elaborate, separately itemised oral submissions of the petitioners. Therefore, no additional arguments should be attributed to them beyond what is reflected in the judicial record.

Respondent’s Arguments

The first respondent’s underlying case was that he was seeking compassionate appointment following the death of his father on 07.07.2003, and that his case had not been considered for such appointment.

Consequently, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, through O.A. No. 527 of 2011, which was allowed on 25.04.2012, with a direction to the petitioners to appoint him on compassionate grounds.

The record also reflects an application under Section 151 CPC seeking vacation of the interim order dated 17.09.2012 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 37201 of 2012.

Important note: The final High Court order does not set out any further detailed, separately itemised submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, no additional contentions are being inferred beyond the order itself.

Court Order / Findings

The Telangana High Court observed that:

  • The respondent’s father had died on 07.07.2003.
  • The respondent had sought compassionate appointment and, when his case was not considered, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal through O.A. No. 527 of 2011.
  • The Tribunal had allowed the O.A. on 25.04.2012 and directed the petitioners to appoint the respondent on compassionate grounds.
  • The High Court had suspended operation of the Tribunal’s order on 17.09.2012.
  • By the time of final consideration in 2022, a very substantial period had elapsed from the death of the respondent’s father.
  • At that stage, the Court held that it was not in a position to direct the petitioners to consider the respondent’s case for compassionate appointment because, with the efflux of time, no relief could be granted to the respondent.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were ordered to stand closed, and no order as to costs was made.

Important Clarification

The significant clarification emerging from the order is that a claim for compassionate appointment is materially affected by the passage of time. In this case, the High Court declined to issue a direction for consideration of compassionate appointment at such a belated stage because of the efflux of time.

The decision should, however, be stated with precision: the High Court’s short order did not formulate a universal rule that every delayed compassionate-appointment claim must automatically fail after a fixed number of years. The Court’s conclusion was based on the circumstances before it and the substantial lapse of time by the date of final adjudication.

Further, the uploaded order does not expressly cite or discuss any separate Supreme Court or High Court precedent by case name. Therefore, no unrelated precedent should be presented as though it had been relied upon in this judgment.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India — The writ petition was instituted invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Invoked in the interlocutory proceedings relating to suspension and vacation of the interim order.

W.P.M.P. No. 37201 of 2012 — Application seeking suspension of operation of the Tribunal’s order dated 25.04.2012 pending disposal of the writ petition.

W.V.M.P. No. 149 of 2013 — Application seeking vacation of the interim order dated 17.09.2012.

O.A. No. 527 of 2011 — Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, concerning the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment.

 

Link to Download the Order-https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783416522_1419compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.