- (1.) WE have heard Mr. Sajnu Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Govind Saran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents- t Railway and also perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 31. 7. 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short the Tribunal) dismissing Original Application No. 419 of 2004 (Smt. Lalita and another v. Union of India and another) whereby the petitioners have sought for mandamus commanding the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner j No. 2. It is not disputed that Late Lilit Kumar Singh was the employee of the Railway Department and died on 12th October, 1989. At that time petitioner No. 2 was minor, who claims to be the adopted son of petitioner No. 1 (deceased em ployee ). Petitioner No. 2 has disclosed his age 28 years in the affidavit, he must have attained majority in the year 1998. It is not the case of petitioner No. 1 that she had ever made any application claiming compassionate appointment for her self. It is on the contrary admitted that she requested the authority concerned to provide compassionate appointment to her son, who is petitioner No. 2, which could not have been granted prior to 1998; since he was minor. Learned Counsel for the respondents contends that petitioner No. 2 could attain the age of majority in the year 1998 and after such a long lapse of time compassionate appointment could not have been given. Moreover after 18 years of the death of the husband of petitioner No. 1, the request to provide compassionate appointment cannot be considered. We have considered the rival submissions and are of the view that though the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner by disbelieving the theory of adoption of petitioner No. 2, without entering into that controversy, even (otherwise, the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment should not be considered after such a long time and has rightly been rejected by the respondents. The moot point, which we have considered in this case is whether after more than a decade a person can claim compassionate appointment and whether such request can be considered only on the ground that earlier the child or children being minor could not have been considered for compassionate ap- ' pointment but after attaining the majority they are entitled to be considered for such appointment.
(3.) THE purpose and objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family whose sole bread earner has died in harness. It is not a source of recruitment. It only enables the family to tide over (the sudden crisis and not to give a member of such family a post much less a " post held by the deceased. It is not a kind of right of succession in the service when the employee has died in harness. THE compassionate appointment has always been considered to be an exception to the Rules made in favour of the family of the deceased employee in consideration of services rendered by him and legitimate expectations, change in status and affairs of the family endan- , gered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. It cannot be allowed as a matter of course. THEre is no question of reserving a vacancy for the Dependents of deceased employee so as to provide them as and when they claim the same after acquiring requisite qualification, age etc. If compassionate appointment is allowed after reasonably long time, it would defeat the very object of assisting the family of deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis result ing due to the death of bread earner, leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. THE matter has been considered by the Apex Court as well ' as this Court time and again and it would be useful to have a bird's eye view on some of such authorities of Apex Court. In the case of Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 1976, the Apex Court while considering the object of granting appoint ment observed as under: ' "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. ";