Compassionate appointment claims are governed by the policy in force on the employee’s death.

Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, an unmarried Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS), died in harness on 13 June 2017.

The applicant, her dependent brother, was a minor at the time.

His mother applied for compassionate appointment for him on 11 July 2017; he later completed matriculation in March 2019 and 10+2 in March 2021.

The department sought further documents, but the complete case was not forwarded until 9 November 2023.

The Compassionate Engagement Committee rejected the application, by order dated 9 February 2024, as time-barred under the GDS (Compassionate Engagement) Scheme, 2023.

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

Whether the applicant’s claim for compassionate engagement was governed by the policy in force when the GDS employee died in 2017, or by the 2023 Scheme in force when the case was considered.

Whether the application could be rejected as time-barred when the applicant’s mother had applied for him in 2017 and the department’s delay contributed to the late forwarding of the complete case.

The Tribunal applied the 2017 GDS compassionate-engagement policy, particularly clause 8(a), which provided for consideration on merit, and clause 9, under which applications made more than one year after death were treated as belated and required consideration in context.

It considered paragraph 10(ii) of the 2023 GDS (Compassionate Engagement) Scheme, which required an eligible family member who had not earlier met the eligibility criteria to apply within two years of attaining them, but held that the 2023 Scheme could not retrospectively govern this 2017 death.

In support, the Tribunal relied on Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana & Ors., State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Sh. Radha Mohan, Navdeep Singh, and Secretary to Govt., Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa, as authorities supporting application of the policy in force at the time of death.

It distinguished N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors., relied on by the respondents, on the basis that its facts concerned an appointment made when the appointee was ineligible.

The Tribunal found that the mother’s 11 July 2017 application was on the departmental record and that the applicant was then a minor; he could not have been appointed before meeting the applicable age and qualification requirements.

It therefore treated the initial application and the applicant’s later eligibility in light of the 2017 policy, rather than applying the 2023 Scheme’s two-year deadline retrospectively.

The record also showed that the department repeatedly sought the complete case from the local office, but it was not forwarded until November 2023.

The Tribunal concluded that the resulting delay could not fairly be used to defeat the applicant’s claim.

It quashed the order dated 9 February 2024 and directed the respondents to consider the application under the 2017 policy and, if the applicant was eligible, appoint him forthwith, with notional benefits from the due date and actual benefits from the date of joining.

The process was to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

The OA was allowed, and costs of ₹5,000 were imposed on Respondent No. 3, payable to the CAT Bar Association, Chandigarh.