Compassionate appointment claims must be adjudicated strictly under the scheme prevalent at the time of death.

The deceased employee, Afsar Ali Sardar, was a Postman who died in harness on 29.01.1999

His widow (Applicant No. 1) applied for a compassionate appointment for her son (Applicant No. 2) in 1999

Following multiple rounds of litigation and a Review Application (R.A. 20/2021), the respondents rejected the claim on 24.05.2022

The Applicants challenged this in O.A. 1266/2022, which was dismissed, but later set aside by the Calcutta High Court in WPCT 123/2022

The High Court directed the respondents to consider the application afresh based on the rules prevalent at the time of death (1999)

In purported compliance, the Chief Post Master General issued a speaking order on 06/09.03.2023, again rejecting the claim on the grounds that the family was not indigent and mentioning a 5% vacancy cap

The Tribunal initially dismissed the current O.A. on 28.08.2024, but the High Court, in WPCT 314/2024, remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to determine if the 1999 policy was strictly applied

1. Whether the respondents complied with the High Court's directive to consider the application for compassionate appointment strictly under the scheme prevalent at the time of the employee's death in 1999

2. Whether the inclusion of subsequent restrictive criteria, such as a 5% vacancy cap and modern point-allocation systems, invalidated the rejection order dated 06/09.03.2023

The court primarily applied the principles regarding compassionate appointment established in Secretary to Govt. Dept. of Education (Primary) & Ors. v. Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (2021), which held that the applicability of a modified scheme depends on fixed criteria, such as the date of death, rather than the date of consideration

It further relied on the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998, which was the scheme in force at the time of the employee's death

This 1998 scheme exempted compassionate appointments from certain recruitment procedures and did not stipulate the 5% vacancy cap introduced in later policies

The Tribunal noted that while the respondents claimed to have followed the 1999 rules, their speaking order and affidavit in reply relied on a "point allocation system" from 2022 and a 5% vacancy cap

The Tribunal found that the 1998 OM, applicable at the time of death, explicitly exempted compassionate appointments from standard recruitment procedures and ban orders, implying that no such 5% cap existed at that time

By applying the "indigence" formula and vacancy limitations of 2022 to a 1999 death, the respondents failed to follow the High Court's mandate to apply the old policy in its "true spirit"

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents’ reliance on subsequent restrictive guidelines negated their claim of having considered the case under the 1999 scheme

The respondents were directed to clearly identify the specific compassionate appointment scheme in force on 29.01.1999 and reconsider the applicant’s case strictly in accordance with that scheme

The respondents must complete this exercise and take follow-up action within 120 days of receiving the order

No costs were awarded