Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after prolonged delay once the financial crisis has passed.

The applicant’s father, a Railway employee working as a Driver, died in harness on 15 February 2006, leaving behind his widow and nine children.

The applicant claimed that his elder brother submitted an application dated 16 August 2007 seeking compassionate appointment for him.

The applicant passed High School in 2019 and Intermediate in 2021; his mother allegedly sent reminders on 23 October 2020 and 17 March 2021.

The applicant himself applied on 28 November 2022, referring to the earlier application.

The respondents sought additional documents through communications dated 24 January 2023 and 27 February 2023, which the applicant claimed to have supplied on 13 February 2023 and 6 March 2023.

By order dated 19 December 2023, the respondents rejected the claim on the ground that it had been made approximately 16 years after the employee’s death.

The respondents further stated that terminal dues of ₹16,80,178 had been paid and that the widow was receiving family pension of ₹9,175 plus dearness relief per month.

The applicant challenged the rejection under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to compassionate appointment despite approaching the respondents approximately 16 years after his father’s death.

2. Whether the alleged application dated 16 August 2007 and subsequent reminders required the respondents to treat the applicant’s claim as a timely and continuing claim rather than a fresh claim made in 2022.

3. Whether the rejection order dated 19 December 2023 suffered from illegality, non-application of mind, or procedural infirmity warranting interference.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing the filing of an original application before the Tribunal.

It relied principally on State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, Civil Appeal Nos. 8842–8855 of 2022, decided on 3 March 2023, which reiterates that compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary recruitment process, is intended only to enable a deceased employee’s family to overcome an immediate financial crisis, and is not a vested right or an alternative source of recruitment.

The Tribunal also relied on Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, and Shashi Kumar, which establish that compassionate appointment must be immediate, cannot be claimed after the family’s financial crisis has passed, and requires consideration of factors such as family income, liabilities, terminal benefits, dependency, marital status, and other sources of income.

The Tribunal found that the alleged application dated 16 August 2007 did not bear any acknowledgment or receiving from the respondents and therefore could not safely establish that a valid claim had been pursued at the relevant time.

It treated the applicant’s approach in 2022 as an inordinate delay of approximately 16 years.

Applying the principle that compassionate appointment exists to address immediate financial distress, the Tribunal held that the family’s ability to survive for such a prolonged period substantially diluted the purpose of the scheme.

The receipt of terminal benefits and continued family pension further supported the respondents’ position that the claim did not arise from an existing or immediate financial crisis.

The Tribunal consequently rejected the argument that the applicant’s minority, later acquisition of educational qualifications, or the alleged earlier application preserved an enforceable right to appointment after such a lengthy lapse of time.

It found no illegality, irregularity, or infirmity in the order dated 19 December 2023 and dismissed Original Application No. 587 of 2024.

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.