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

Late Smt. Hosiyari Devi, a regular Safai Wali under the Northern Railway, died in harness on 10 November 2007, leaving behind four married daughters and one unmarried daughter.

Her daughter, Smt. Reena, initially sought compassionate appointment, but her candidature was cancelled on 20 September 2016 after her educational certificate was found to be forged. Thereafter, the applicant, Smt. Sonam, submitted her claim; her educational certificate was verified and found genuine. The Railway authorities rejected her claim on the ground that she was a married daughter and had not established that she would be the breadwinner of the bereaved family. The applicant challenged the rejection, asserting that she remained dependent on her mother, continued to care for her, and that her husband was unemployed.

1. Whether the applicant could claim compassionate appointment after a lapse of more than eighteen years from the death of the deceased employee

2. Whether the applicant’s status as a married daughter, together with the alleged absence of proof that she would be the family’s breadwinner, justified rejection of her claim

3. Whether the respondents’ order rejecting the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment warranted interference

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment and is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to a deceased employee’s family facing sudden financial crisis; it is neither a mode of recruitment, a matter of inheritance, nor a vested right exercisable at any time.

Relying principally on State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, Civil Appeals Nos. 8842–8855 of 2022, decided on 3 March 2023, and the authorities cited therein—including Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85; State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766; and Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384—the Tribunal held that compassionate appointment must ordinarily be immediate and cannot be granted after the crisis has ceased. In assessing financial crisis, relevant factors include family income, liabilities, terminal benefits, age, dependency, marital status, and income from other sources.

The Railway Board’s letter dated 3 February 1981 further required satisfaction that a married daughter claiming appointment would be the breadwinner of the bereaved family.

The Tribunal found that the deceased employee had died on 10 November 2007, whereas the applicant’s claim arose only after her sister’s candidature was cancelled in 2016 and was considered substantially later.

Applying the immediacy requirement governing compassionate appointment, the Tribunal held that the passage of more than eighteen years materially undermined the assertion that the family continued to face the sudden financial crisis contemplated by the scheme. Although the applicant’s educational qualification was genuine, that fact did not establish an enduring entitlement to appointment. The Tribunal also noted the applicant’s status as a married daughter and the absence of sufficient material demonstrating that she would be the breadwinner or that a continuing liability of the deceased employee required discharge. Accordingly, the delay and the surrounding family circumstances justified non-interference with the rejection order.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. No order was made as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.