Compassionate appointment claims must be objectively assessed under each prescribed criterion with recorded points.

The applicant’s father, Late Shri Gautam Ganguly, a Senior Accountant in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E)-I, Allahabad, died in harness on 28 November 2010. The applicant’s mother applied for compassionate appointment for him on 7 March 2011. Although the applicant was called upon to submit testimonials and appear before the Departmental Selection Committee, his claim was rejected on 9 August 2011. A subsequent representation was rejected on 12/13 January 2012 on the ground that there was no provision for reconsideration of cases rejected by the Committee

The respondents stated that the applicant’s case was considered along with 16 other cases for the 2011 panel year, having regard to the applicable criteria, including the family’s financial condition, terminal benefits, pension, liabilities, dependants and availability of vacancies. They further stated that the family received substantial terminal benefits, including gratuity of Rs. 10,00,000, leave encashment of Rs. 3,33,713, CGEGIS of Rs. 65,212 and DLIS of Rs. 60,000, besides provisional family pension of Rs. 11,565 per month plus dearness relief

The applicant had earlier filed O.A. No. 298 of 2014, which was withdrawn on 1 April 2022 with liberty to file a fresh application. The present Original Application challenged the rejection of his claim and sought reconsideration on the ground that the Committee had not made a transparent, heading-wise assessment of the prescribed criteria

Whether the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was assessed objectively and in accordance with the prescribed criteria under the applicable scheme

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s claim could be sustained in the absence of a heading-wise assessment and allocation of points under the relevant criteria

Whether the applicant was entitled to compassionate appointment as a matter of right merely because his father died in harness

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant left in financial distress; it is not a vested or enforceable right merely because the employee died in harness.

However, once the competent authority considers a claim under the scheme, it must assess the claim objectively, fairly and in accordance with the prescribed parameters.

The Tribunal relied on Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 209, and Santhosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 481, as cited by the respondents, for the principle that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is intended to address immediate financial hardship

The relevant assessment required consideration of factors such as family income, terminal and pensionary benefits, liabilities, dependants, immovable property, earnings of family members and other prescribed circumstances

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had no automatic entitlement to appointment merely because his father died in harness. Nevertheless, the respondents’ assertion that the Committee had generally considered various parameters was insufficient to establish that the applicant’s case had been evaluated transparently and objectively.

The record did not disclose the points awarded under each prescribed head or a heading-wise assessment of the applicant’s financial and family circumstances

The Tribunal held that receipt of terminal benefits, by itself, could not conclusively establish that the family was financially secure; the Committee was also required to consider liabilities, family pension, dependants, assets and other relevant circumstances under the governing scheme

Since the decision-making process was not demonstrated through a reasoned, criterion-wise assessment, the rejection order could not be sustained

The respondents were directed to place the applicant’s case before the next meeting of the competent Compassionate Appointment Committee for fresh consideration. The Committee was directed to assess and record points under each prescribed criterion, including financial and family circumstances, liabilities, terminal benefits, family pension, immovable property and other applicable parameters, and thereafter consider the applicant’s total score in comparison with other eligible candidates under the governing rules and instructions. The exercise was to be completed preferably within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order, and the decision was to be communicated to the applicant forthwith. No order as to costs was made; all associated miscellaneous applications were also disposed of