Sandeep K vs The Indian Council Of Agriculture ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1853 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sandeep K vs The Indian Council Of Agriculture ... on 20 February, 2026

O.P.(CAT) No.20 of 2026          -: 1 :-

                                                               2026:KER:14947

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                      &
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

          FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947

                              OP (CAT) NO. 20 OF 2026

      AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2025 IN OA NO.383 OF 2024 OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/Applicant:

              SANDEEP K.,AGED 34 YEARS,S/O. K. KARTHIKEYAN (LATE), SKILLED
              SUPPORTING STAFF (SSS), CPCRI REGIONAL STATION, KRISHNAPURAM
              P.O., KAYAMKULAM, PIN - 690533


              BY ADVS.
              SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR


RESPONDENTS/Respondents 1 to 3:

      1       THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH (ICAR),
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KRISHI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA
              PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

      2       THE DIRECTOR,ICAR-CPCRI, CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH
              INSTITUTE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, KUDLU P.O.,
              KASARAGOD, PIN - 671124

      3       THE HEAD ICAR-CPCRI,REGIONAL STATION, KRISHNAPURAM P.O.,
              KAYAMKULAM, PIN - 690533

             BY ADV.SMT.SREEKALA T.K., SC FOR ICAR
       THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2026, THE COURT
ON 20.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(CAT) No.20 of 2026        -: 2 :-

                                                                2026:KER:14947




                                         Judgment
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenges the order dated 30 th December

2025 passed in O.A.No.180/00383/2024 by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench whereby the claim of

the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been

rejected.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the son

of late K.Karthikeyan. He died on 25.09.2011, while in service after

rendering 28 years, 2 months and 18 days of service. He belonged

to OBC community. Soon after the death of the deceased employee,

the petitioner's mother Leena applied for compassionate

2026:KER:14947

appointment for the petitioner to Group-C, in the prescribed

format. Thereafter, the respondents demanded certain documents

which were provided by the petitioner. The petitioner was assured

that he would be given employment assistance under the

compassionate appointment scheme and since that was not done,

being aggrieved, he approached the Central Administrative

Tribunal in the impugned Original Application seeking a direction

to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the

petitioner herein. The Original Application was dismissed by the

learned Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner had filed the

first representation on 04.02.2012 and if the respondent authorities

were not considering the same, he ought to have approached the

same at the earliest. There is no justification in moving the

Tribunal after the lapse of 13 years and therefore, the delay cannot

be ignored. The claim of the petitioner has been considered in an

objective manner and since he was not found suitable, his case was

2026:KER:14947

not considered. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein had filed

the present Original Petition before this Court.

Petitioner's Contentions

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there

is no question of delay in approaching the Tribunal in as much as

he had submitted the claim within time and the same was not

considered by the respondent authorities. The learned counsel for

the petitioner also contended that the learned Tribunal also failed

to come to the conclusion that this case was considered in detail in

accordance with Annexure R2(e) and R2(k), but he could not be

appointed as he did not secure maximum points considering the

number of vacancies available for appointment. Even today, the

petitioner is unemployed and needs compassionate appointment.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the learned Tribunal

deserves to be set aside. The O.P. needs to be allowed.

2026:KER:14947

Respondent's contention

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents

opposed the prayer and submitted that the case of the petitioner

was considered on several occasions, but due to lower marks, he

could not be considered for appointment. Annexure-R2(f)

indicates that on 20.01.2018, there were eleven applications to be

considered and having regard to the number of vacancies, only four

persons could be recommended for appointment. The four persons

who got maximum marks out of 100 were recommended for

appointment. The petitioner found placed at Sl.No.5 because he got

only 24 marks whereas the other four candidates obtained 54, 46,

45 and 44 marks respectively and were recommended for selection.

On all the occasions, the petitioner did not qualify.

4.1 The learned counsel further submitted that the

appointment on compassionate ground is not a right as also not

regular source of appointment. The learned Tribunal has correctly

2026:KER:14947

interpreted the law as well as the policy and came to the conclusion

that there is huge delay in approaching the Tribunal as well as the

case of the petitioner has been considered on number of occasions

where he was not found eligible. Hence, the Original Petition

deserves to be dismissed on these grounds.

5. Heard Sri Harish Kumar B, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Smt.Sreekala T.K., the learned Standing Counsel for

the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) and perused the

record.

6. It is a trite law that compassionate appointment is carved out

as exception to general law. Two well recognized contingencies for

grant of compassionate appointment are:-

(i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the bread- winner while in service;

(ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread winner.

[See : 2008 (13) SSC 730 (V. Sivamurthy v State Of A.P.)].

2026:KER:14947

7. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State

Of Haryana and others [1994 (4) SCC 138], in para 6 has held as

under:-

"6. 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 1 (1989)4SCC468:1989SCC(L&S)662:(1989)11ATC878: 1989)4SLR327 breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

7.1 The Apex Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v State

of U.P., [2009 (6) SCC, 481], has poignantly held as under:-

" 12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service."

2026:KER:14947

7.2 The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar v State of Bihar

and others, [2000 (7) SCC 192], has opined as under:-

"This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education Vs. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02/06/1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as a petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."

7.3 In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v Madhusudan Das [(2008) 15

SCC 560], the Apex Court has held as follows:

"15..... This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefore, viz., that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a

2026:KER:14947

dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right."

7.4 In Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others v Nirval

Singh [(2019) 6 SCC 774), the Apex Court has held as follows:

"8. The first is the delay in approaching the courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same."

Conclusion

8. Taking into consideration of the aforesaid pronouncement

of the Apex Court and the fact that the petitioner has been able to

tide over the crisis for such a long time i.e. from 2011 to 2026 and

that the petitioner is a Plumber, already married and having

children, it cannot be said that the petitioner is in penurious

condition.

2026:KER:14947

9. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal

has not erred in dismissing the Original Application. The present

O.P. being bereft of merit and substance and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE

Sd/-P.V.BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE css/

2026:KER:14947

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) NO. 20 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 in OA TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT ALONG WITH THE FORWQARDING LETTER OF THE APPLICANTS MOTHER DATED 4-02-2012 Annexure A2 in OA TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F. NO. 4(123)/2008- ESTT. DATED 19-08-017FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANTS MOTHER Annexure A3 in OA TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE APPLICANTS MOTHER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A4 in OA TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A5 in OA TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED ON 19-04-2022 BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A6 in OA TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO. 2 (2) COM.

APPT./2020-ESTT DATED 18.9 2023 Annexure R2 (a) OM NO. F. NO. 14014/02/ 2012 ESTT. (D) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING Annexure R2(b) in OA TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE MET UNDER THE SCHEME FOR KASARAGOD REGION DATED 27-11-2012 Annexure R2(c) in OA TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE MET UNDER THE SCHEME ON 05-10-2013 Annexure R2 (d) in OA TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 05-10-2013 Annexure R2(e) in OA TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE SELECTION IN THE RESPONDENTS OFFICE AT KASARGODE WHICH WAS HELD ON 05-08-2017 Annexure R2 (f) In OA TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE BOARD PUBLISHED ON 20-01-

Annexure R2 (g) In OA TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE DATE 20-01-2018 Annexure R2 (h) In OA TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE BOARD DATED 06-06-2020 Annexure R2 (i) In OA TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANT IN OA FOR VARIOUS TIME AND THE MARKED AWARDED FOR THE PERIOD 2018-

Annexure R2(j) In OA TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATE 27-07-2021 Annexure R2(k) in OA TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE DATED

2026:KER:14947

28-12-2023 AT THE 2ND RESPONDENTS OFFICE AT KASARGODE Annexure R2 (l) in OA TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08-02-2024 Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORIGINAL APPLICATION AS O.A.NO. 383/2024 DATED 1/7/2024 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 3/12/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 6/3/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 14/7/2025 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS M.A.NO. 857/2025 DATED 26/8/2025 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2025 IN O.A.NO. 383/2024 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH