Compassionate Appointment Claims Must be Reconsidered Following the Lifting of Corporate Policy Bans on Recruitment

Late Shyam Lal, a Phone Mechanic at BSNL and husband of Applicant No. 1, died in harness on April 4, 2009

Following his death, the applicants sought compassionate appointment for their sons, eventually focusing the claim on Applicant No. 2, Krishna Kumar Saini

The Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) rejected the application on April 1, 2016, noting that the applicant secured only 33 merit points, whereas 54 points were required under the applicable policy

A subsequent representation was rejected on March 21, 2018

The respondents further contended that the BSNL Board had placed all compassionate appointments in abeyance since April 1, 2018, due to the company's stressed financial condition, a ban which was extended beyond March 31, 2022

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment based on the merit point system was legally sustainable

2. Whether the applicant's case for compassionate appointment can be reconsidered in light of the ongoing BSNL ban on such recruitment

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The substantive assessment was governed by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines dated October 9, 1998, and the BSNL Compassionate Appointment Policy dated June 27, 2007, which utilizes a weightage point system to determine indigence

The Court relied on the principle that compassionate appointment is not a vested right, citing Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar

Additionally, it followed the precedent set in Pravesh Kumar v. Union of India (2025), which dictates the handling of applications during BSNL’s recruitment ban

The Tribunal examined the respondents' contention that the applicant failed to meet the benchmark "merit points" required for appointment, having secured only 33 points against a higher threshold

However, the Tribunal balanced this against BSNL's internal policy decisions (from the 188th and 211th Board meetings) which have kept compassionate appointments in abeyance due to financial distress

Rather than adjudicating on the granular merits of the 33-point score at this stage, the Tribunal noted that the legal issue regarding the "abeyance" status of such claims had been settled by itself in Pravesh Kumar v. Union of India

Consequently, it determined that the applicant is entitled to a fresh review once the administrative ban is lifted, ensuring the claim is evaluated under the policy guidelines then in effect

It held that the matter is squarely covered by the decision in Pravesh Kumar v. Union of India

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment in accordance with applicable policies as and when the current ban on such appointments is lifted by BSNL

No order was made as to costs