A second compassionate appointment is barred once the first appointee joins service.

Late Jageshwar, an employee of the North Central Railway, died in harness on 22 April 2021.

His widow, Applicant No. 1, sought compassionate appointment for their son, Amit Kumar.

He was appointed as Technician Grade-III and joined on 25 January 2022.

After taking leave, he attended training but was returned to the department because of unsatisfactory performance and conduct.

He did not thereafter report for duty; however, his appointment had not been cancelled or terminated.

Applicant No. 1 subsequently sought compassionate appointment for their daughter, Applicant No. 2, but the request remained undecided.

The applicants filed this OA seeking consideration and grant of that appointment.

1. Whether Applicant No. 2 could claim compassionate appointment on the same cause of action after her brother had been offered and joined compassionate service, where his service had not been terminated.

2. Whether the respondents could be directed to consider and grant Applicant No. 2’s request for compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment, intended to provide succour to a deceased employee’s family in immediate financial distress; it is not a regular source of recruitment or a vested right.

Once a family member’s application has been accepted and that person has joined service, the claim is ordinarily consummated and cannot be exercised again on the same cause of action.

The Tribunal relied on The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 12640–12643 of 2025, decided on 12 December 2025, for these principles.

It distinguished Prajaj C. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 1187 of 2010, because that case concerned reduction of the training period.

The Tribunal found that Amit Kumar had been offered compassionate appointment and had joined service.

Although he did not report after being returned from training, the respondents had not cancelled or terminated his appointment.

Applying M. Jayabal, the Tribunal held that the family’s compassionate-appointment claim had already been acted upon and could not ordinarily be revived to secure a second appointment for another family member.

The applicants’ reliance on Prajaj C. did not assist them because it concerned a different issue.

It held that Applicant No. 2 was not entitled to a second compassionate appointment while her brother’s appointment remained unterminated, and that no direction to grant such appointment could be issued.

The OA was dismissed, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.