Compassionate appointment claims require fresh merits-based consideration where circumstances and comparative merit may change.

The applicant’s mother, an MTS employee of the respondents, died in harness on 25 January 2014, leaving behind her husband, two daughters and two sons, including the applicant.

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 29 December 2014, but his claim was rejected after the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) did not recommend his case.

In an earlier OA, the Tribunal directed reconsideration; however, the respondents again rejected the claim by order dated 16 October 2018, communicated on 23 October 2018.

In a subsequent proceeding, the Tribunal directed consideration of the applicant’s representation dated 27 August 2023, which was rejected by order dated 1 January 2024.

The respondents stated that the applicant obtained 48 merit points, whereas the last recommended candidate had 57 points, and that the family had managed to survive for several years after the employee’s death.

The applicant challenged the rejection orders, contending that his family’s continuing indigence had not been properly examined and that no fresh enquiry had been conducted by the Welfare Inspector.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment, particularly by order dated 1 January 2024, was legally sustainable in the absence of a fresh and effective assessment of the family’s present financial condition and relative merit.

Whether the applicant’s claim could be rejected merely because several years had elapsed since the death of the employee and the family had managed to survive during that period.

Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s claim afresh through the CRC and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal applied the DoPT scheme on compassionate appointment, under which appointment is intended to relieve the family of a Government servant who dies in harness from financial destitution and the emergency caused by the loss of the breadwinner.

Compassionate appointments may be made up to 5% of vacancies falling within the direct-recruitment quota in Group ‘C’ posts.

Under DoPT O.M. dated 26 July 2012, the earlier three-year time limit for considering compassionate-appointment cases was withdrawn; applications are to be considered, subject to vacancy and applicable instructions, on their merits without any prescribed time limit, with the appointing authority bearing responsibility for examining the penurious condition of the family.

The Tribunal further recognised that the family’s financial condition, the competing candidates, and the vacancies available under the 5% quota may change over time, requiring a fresh assessment of relative merit.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s case had been considered on merits only twice and that he had diligently pursued his claim through successive proceedings.

Since the governing DoPT instructions do not impose an absolute time bar, the respondents could not treat the passage of time, by itself, as conclusive proof that the family no longer required assistance.

The family’s condition, the relative merit of competing applicants, and the available vacancies could have changed since the earlier CRC assessments.

Consequently, reliance on the earlier merit comparison and the fact that the family had survived since 2014 was insufficient to permanently close the applicant’s claim without a fresh examination.

The Tribunal therefore found it unjust to deny reconsideration without directing the respondents to reassess the applicant’s relative merit through the CRC and determine the matter by a reasoned order.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim afresh on merits through the CRC and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal expressly made no observation on the merits of the applicant’s substantive claim for appointment.

The OA and connected MAs were disposed of, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.