Compassionate appointment cannot be rejected for overage without a verified assessment of family indigence.

The applicant’s father, an MTS in the EPFO, died in service on 28 October 2020; the applicant’s mother had died earlier, on 8 May 2008.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment within a few months of his father’s death.

His claim was rejected by order dated 6 September 2022, communicated on 12 September 2022.

The stated reasons included that the family’s movable and immovable property was shown as nil despite outstanding loans, no minor or unmarried daughter was dependent on the deceased, the applicant’s brother’s studies were unspecified, and the applicant was 33, married, and had a child.

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

The respondents maintained that the applicant exceeded the prescribed age limit and that the competent authority had rejected the proposal after considering the record.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s compassionate-appointment claim was sustainable when the authority had not adequately assessed the family’s financial position and need for immediate assistance

2. Whether the applicant’s age could, in the circumstances, be treated as a sufficient ground to reject his claim without first determining whether age relaxation was warranted on the basis of the family’s indigent condition

The Tribunal applied the principle that compassionate appointment is intended to address the immediate financial distress of a deceased employee’s family and that the family’s financial condition must be assessed on relevant facts.

It relied on DoP&T O.M. No. 14014/02/2012-Estt.(D), dated 16 January 2013, which states that whether a request is belated is to be assessed with reference to the date of the employee’s death or medical retirement, rather than the applicant’s age at the time of consideration.

The Tribunal also directed consideration under the prevalent rules, including whether the competent authority should relax the upper-age limit if the inquiry establishes a need for immediate assistance.

No specific judicial precedent was identified in the order.

The Tribunal found that the rejection order relied on the existence of loan liabilities despite the family having declared no movable or immovable property, but the authority had not supported its assessment with a detailed inquiry by the Welfare Officer.

It also considered that the employee’s wife had predeceased him, no family pension was being paid, and only terminal benefits had been released to the applicant and his brother; the authority had not assessed whether those benefits could meet the loan obligations and the family’s needs.

In light of the DoP&T guidance, the applicant’s age at the time of consideration could not displace an assessment of the family’s indigence and the need for age relaxation.

It directed the respondents to conduct a proper inquiry under the applicable rules and assess the deceased employee’s family’s financial position.

If the inquiry establishes a need for immediate assistance, the respondents must proceed to consider relaxation of the upper-age limit and reconsider the applicant’s candidature at the next CRC meeting convened for that purpose.

The O.A. was allowed, with no order as to costs.