Compassionate appointment claims must be reconsidered through a detailed, parameter-wise merit assessment.

Late Shiv Swaroop Dwivedi, a Junior Assistant with the Central Administrative Tribunal, died in harness on 16 April 2021.

His wife, Applicant No. 1, applied for compassionate appointment for their son, Applicant No. 2, and made several follow-up representations.

The son’s claim was considered with other applications but was not recommended: he received 45 points under the 100-point assessment system, while candidates with higher scores were recommended against available vacancies.

Following a 2024 request for fresh applications, the applicants submitted the prescribed documents, which were forwarded for consideration; they later sought a direction for further consideration.

Whether Applicant No. 2’s claim for compassionate appointment should be reconsidered by the competent committee despite its earlier consideration and non-recommendation.

Whether that reconsideration should include a detailed assessment of the marks awarded under the applicable evaluation parameters.

The Tribunal applied the principle that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right; claims must be assessed under the applicable scheme and in light of the relative financial condition of the affected families.

An eligible dependent’s claim must be considered by the competent committee under the policy applicable at the time of consideration.

The Tribunal also referred to Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the basis for the application, but cited no specific precedent.

The Tribunal accepted that the claim had previously been considered and that the son was not recommended because other candidates scored higher.

However, given the applicants’ continued pursuit of the claim since 2021 and the renewed processing of the application in 2024, it considered further committee review appropriate in the interests of justice.

To ensure that the reassessment was transparent and policy-based, it directed the respondents to prepare a detailed merit-point chart covering the prescribed factors, including income, terminal benefits, dependants, liabilities, assets, qualifications, and the deceased employee’s remaining service.

The Tribunal expressly left the merits of the claim to the committee.

The committee must prepare a detailed evaluation sheet and communicate its decision to the applicants; if the applicant falls within the zone of consideration based on merit and vacancy availability, his case is to be considered accordingly.

No opinion was expressed on the merits, and there was no order as to costs.