Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right After Lapse of Long Duration Ending Potential Financial Crisis.

The applicants are the widow and son of Late Goura Chandra Mohanty, an Assistant Post Master who died in a road accident in October 2006

Applicant No. 2 (the son) applied for compassionate appointment in December 2006. His case was rejected multiple times between 2009 and 2021 on grounds including relative merit/indigency, marital status (later modified), and the family’s financial status

Following several rounds of litigation, including a 2024 direction from the Tribunal upheld by the Orissa High Court, the respondents re-examined the case and issued a fresh rejection on August 5, 2025.

The rejection was based on the family's ownership of two houses, five acres of agricultural land, and the fact that the family survived for over 19 years since the employee's death

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a direction for appointment or reconsideration for compassionate appointment after a lapse of 19 years from the date of the employee's death

2. Whether the family’s ability to survive for nearly two decades and their possession of immovable property negates the claim of "indigent condition" required for compassionate appointment

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, intended only to provide immediate succour to a family in penury

It relied on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, which established that such appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after the crisis is over

It further cited M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. Anil Badyakar, holding that a 12-year delay renders such claims invalid

Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanayagam, emphasizing that survival over many years suggests the family has tided over the crisis

Tinku v. State of Haryana, affirming that the policy's object is to grant relief to families facing "sudden pecuniary financial destitution"

The Tribunal observed that while Applicant No. 2’s case had been considered multiple times, he could not be accommodated within the limited quota due to the Relative Merit Point System

The court reasoned that the fundamental objective of the scheme—to help a family survive an immediate financial crisis following the death of a breadwinner—is lost when 19 years have passed

Citing Apex Court precedents, the Tribunal noted that Applicant No. 2 is now 47 years old, nearing the end of his potential service life, and the family’s survival since 2006 proves they are no longer in the state of "sudden crisis" the law intends to mitigate

The court held that granting appointment now would not only violate the scheme's purpose but would also infringe upon the rights of other currently deserving candidates who are in immediate need

The court found no illegality in the respondents' rejection order dated August 5, 2025, which correctly identified that the family possessed sufficient assets and had survived the immediate aftermath of the death

Consequently, the O.A. was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the applicants