Compassionate appointment claims must be freshly assessed on merits despite an earlier adverse committee decision.

The applicant’s father, a Postman, died in harness on 27 February 2016. The applicant’s mother had predeceased him, and the family included three married daughters and three sons, including the applicant.

The Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) considered the applicant’s request for compassionate appointment in 2019 but did not recommend him: he scored 29 merit points, while the last recommended candidate scored 39.

After the Tribunal directed the applicant to make a fresh representation in OA No. 119 of 2024, the respondents rejected it on 26 June 2024, relying on the same scores. The applicant challenged that rejection in this OA.

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s compassionate-appointment claim could stand when his case had been considered by the CRC only once, in 2019, and was not freshly assessed on his subsequent representation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to compassionate appointment, or instead to fresh consideration of his case on merits.

The Tribunal referred to the DoPT compassionate-appointment scheme, whose object is to provide relief to a dependent family left in financial destitution following the death in harness or medical retirement of a Government servant; appointments are subject to a maximum of 5% of direct-recruitment vacancies in Group ‘C’ posts.

It also relied on DoPT O.M. No. 14014/3/2011-Estt.(D), dated 26 July 2012, which withdrew the earlier three-year time limit and provides that applications are to be considered, subject to vacancy and applicable instructions, on their merits without a time limit; the appointing authority bears responsibility for examining the family’s penurious condition.

The Tribunal also noted the consolidated DoPT guidelines issued by O.M. dated 2 August 2022.

The applicant’s claim had been considered only once, in 2019, and the 2024 rejection repeated the earlier merit-point comparison without a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal reasoned that the family’s financial circumstances, the competing field of applicants, and the vacancies available within the 5% quota may change over time, affecting an applicant’s prospects.

Given the rule that compassionate-appointment cases are to be considered on merit without a time limit, and that the applicant had continued to pursue his claim, the Tribunal found it unjust to foreclose consideration without a fresh assessment by the CRC.

It expressly made no finding on the merits of the applicant’s entitlement.

The OA was disposed of accordingly; no appointment was ordered, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.