Belated compassionate appointment claims cannot be rejected solely for delay without assessing financial hardship and merit.

The deceased applicant no. 1, Chameli Devi, applied on 18 December 2013 for compassionate appointment for her son, applicant no. 2, following the death of his father, a regular Group D employee, on 23 October 2013.

The application was rejected by order dated 24/25 November 2020 solely because the claim was considered belated by more than five years.

The applicants also disputed the selection and marks awarded to respondent no. 5, who had been appointed in 2016; that selection had been challenged in an earlier Tribunal proceeding, O.A. No. 605/2017.

The applicants sought, among other relief, quashing of the rejection and consideration of applicant no. 2’s claim.

Whether the respondents could reject the compassionate-appointment claim solely as belated, without assessing the family’s financial condition and the claim on the prescribed merits.

Whether the Tribunal should revisit the challenge to respondent no. 5’s selection and marks in this proceeding.

The Tribunal applied the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 16 January 2013, particularly paragraph 9. It permits consideration of compassionate-appointment requests even where the death occurred “say five years or so” earlier, while requiring careful examination of the family’s need for immediate assistance and its financial condition; a belated appointment decision may be taken only at the level of the Secretary of the concerned Department or Ministry, and the authority making the appointment bears responsibility for examining the family’s penurious condition.

The Tribunal also relied on its decision in Vikas Pearson v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 605/2017, which required independent evaluation under the DoPT parameters and consideration of approval by the Secretary, ICAR where appropriate.

The impugned order rejected the claim on delay alone and did not assess the deceased employee’s family’s financial condition or the claim under the applicable merit parameters. The DoPT memorandum did not make the five-year period an absolute bar; it required a circumspect, case-specific assessment. The respondents therefore had to evaluate the claim on its merits rather than treat delay as conclusive.

The Tribunal declined to revisit the allegations concerning respondent no. 5’s property disclosures and marks: her selection had been challenged in O.A. No. 605/2017, where the Tribunal had not disturbed the 2016 merit list or appointment, and the alleged forgery issue had not been determined there.

If found eligible notwithstanding the delay, his case is to be recommended for appointment in accordance with the rules.

The Tribunal did not order appointment, set aside respondent no. 5’s appointment, or grant costs; the O.A. and associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.