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

The applicant’s father, who was employed as a Record Keeper in the office of the Accountant General, Gwalior, died in harness on 8 January 2010. At that time, the applicant was 11 years old and a minor.

The applicant’s mother applied for compassionate appointment on 28 January 2010. Her case was considered by the Departmental Screening Committee and was ultimately closed in 2017 on the ground that she was approximately 57–58 years old and appointment would not provide meaningful financial assistance to the family; her case had also not secured a place within the available compassionate-appointment vacancies on several occasions.

After attaining majority, the applicant claimed compassionate appointment in place of his mother. The respondents closed the matter, and the applicant filed the present Original Application in 2021 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

Whether the applicant could claim compassionate appointment several years after the death of his father and after the closure of his mother’s case.

Whether the applicant was entitled to seek appointment on attaining majority when his mother’s claim had already been considered and closed, and no specific application had been submitted by him upon attaining majority.

Whether the respondents’ refusal to grant compassionate appointment was contrary to the governing norms or otherwise liable to judicial interference.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary recruitment process and is intended only to relieve the family of a deceased government employee from the immediate financial crisis caused by the loss of its breadwinner; it is not a vested or hereditary right enforceable at any future time.

The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court’s decisions in W.P. No. 3570 of 2014, decided on 6 October 2017, and G. Rajbabu v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., W.P. No. 3882 of 2014, which held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after the crisis has subsided or after an excessive delay.

It also applied the Supreme Court’s principle in Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Lucknow v. Prabhat Singh, that courts and tribunals must not grant compassionate appointment on the basis of sympathy or discretion contrary to the prescribed norms, since doing so may deprive genuinely indigent families of relief.

The Tribunal further considered the applicable governmental scheme and noted that it contained no provision permitting another family member to revive a case after the earlier applicant’s case had been closed.

The Tribunal found that the deceased employee had died in 2010, whereas the applicant pursued the matter before the Tribunal only in 2021, demonstrating a substantial delay and weakening the claim of continuing financial crisis.

The mother’s claim had been considered repeatedly and was closed by a reasoned and speaking decision in 2017 after assessment under the applicable compassionate-appointment norms.

The applicant neither pursued his own claim for several years nor produced an application seeking compassionate appointment upon attaining majority.

In the absence of any rule allowing the applicant to substitute himself for his mother after closure of her case, and given that compassionate appointment is confined to immediate relief rather than delayed employment, the Tribunal held that judicial sympathy could not override the governing scheme and established legal principles.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs. Any pending Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of.