Absence of financial penury disentitles a dependent from seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

The applicant’s mother, an Auditor, was relieved from service on medical grounds on 01.04.2022 after a road accident left her in a vegetative state

The applicant sought appointment on compassionate grounds under the CCS Rules on 20.04.2021, citing extreme medical expenses exceeding Rs. 1,00,000 per month

Following a prior direction from the Tribunal in OA No. 1030/2022 to reconsider the case, the respondent’s Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) again rejected the application via an order dated 26.02.2024

A fresh assessment by a Welfare Officer in February 2024 revealed that the family’s total monthly income was Rs. 1,85,440 (comprising pensions of both parents and the elder brother's salary), and that the family owned a house, two residential plots, and fixed deposits worth Rs. 10 lakhs

The applicant challenged this rejection, arguing the family lacked a stable source of livelihood to meet ongoing medical costs

1. Whether the applicant's family met the criteria of financial penury or indigence required for compassionate appointment.

2. Whether the respondent erred in law by rejecting the application for compassionate appointment despite the mother’s medical invalidation.

The court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment rules, intended solely to help a family overcome a sudden financial crisis rather than serving as a vested right or an alternative source of recruitment

The court followed Tinku v. State of Haryana & Others (2024 INSC 867), which established that such appointments require strict scrutiny of pecuniary destitution

The court followed Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh (Civil Appeal No. 624 of 2017), which held that if a family's monthly income exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., 60%) of the deceased employee’s emoluments, the claim for compassionate appointment is untenable

The Tribunal analyzed the financial report submitted by the respondent to determine if the "indigent" condition was satisfied.

It noted that the family's aggregate monthly income of Rs. 1,85,440 was substantial

The court contrasted the applicant’s claim of financial distress with the objective findings of the DSC, which documented significant assets including a primary residence, two additional plots in Sriperumbudur, and Rs. 10 lakhs in fixed deposits

Applying the Baljit Singh precedent, the court found that since the family's income and assets were robust, the "sudden financial crisis" which compassionate appointment aims to mitigate did not exist

The Tribunal concluded that the DSC had correctly assessed the holistic financial condition of the family in accordance with settled legal principles

The court affirmed that compassionate appointment is not a right and can only be granted when a family is left helpless or penniless

Consequently, the Tribunal found the respondent’s impugned order dated 26.02.2024 to be valid and dismissed the Original Application (OA) as devoid of merits

No order was made as to costs