COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT CLAIMS REQUIRE IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL DISTRESS AND PROVEN DEPENDENCY.

The husband of applicant no. 1, Late Banarasi Prasad, a Railway Employee, died in service on June 19, 2014.

Applicant no. 1 sought compassionate appointment for her married daughter, Saroja Devi (applicant no. 2).

An earlier application (O.A. No. 57/2022) was disposed of by the Tribunal on January 14, 2022, with directions to the competent authority to pass a reasoned order on the applicant's representation dated November 28, 2019.

Respondent no. 3 requested a dependency certificate from a civil authority on March 4, 2022.

Before applicant no. 2 could submit the certificate (obtained on May 20, 2022), her case for compassionate appointment was rejected by an order dated May 9, 2022.

Applicant no. 1 was 56 years old at the time of her husband's death.

Applicant no. 2, while married, claimed full dependency on her father due to her husband's irregular income.

Respondents argued that applicant no. 2 was a married daughter, living with her husband and three children, and was not dependent on her deceased father or mother.

She had been residing with her husband in her in-laws' house since her marriage in 1992.

Additionally, applicant no. 1 was receiving family pension.

1. Whether the rejection of applicant no. 2's compassionate appointment application by the impugned order dated May 9, 2022, was valid.

2. Whether applicant no. 2, a married daughter living with her husband, fulfilled the criteria of complete dependency on the deceased employee for compassionate appointment.

3. Whether the application for compassionate appointment was timely, given the lapse of over eleven years since the employee's death.

The principles governing compassionate appointments established by the Supreme Court of India.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment rules, not a vested right or a matter of inheritance.

Its primary object is to mitigate immediate financial hardship caused by the death of the breadwinner, and thus, should be provided immediately to redeem the family from distress.

The financial condition of the family and whether there is an immediate crisis must be examined, including income, liabilities, terminal benefits, age, dependency, and marital status of family members.

Delay in applying for compassionate appointment suggests that the immediate crisis has been overcome.

The court referred to *Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India*, *Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana*, *Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh*, *State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta*, *Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar*, *I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi*, *Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra*, *State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir*, and *Shashi Kumar*'s cases regarding the purpose and limitations of compassionate appointments.

The court analyzed that the respondents did not reject applicant no. 2's claim merely because she was married, but because she failed to fulfill the criterion of "complete dependence" on the deceased employee.

Applicant no. 2 herself admitted living with her husband since her marriage in 1992, pre-dating her father's death in 2014.

Furthermore, terminal benefits were received, and applicant no. 1 was receiving family pension.

The court emphasized that the object of compassionate appointment is to address a "sudden financial crisis".

Given that over eleven years had passed since the deceased employee's death in 2014, and the family had survived this period, the court concluded that the element of "sudden financial crisis" was absent.

The court referenced Supreme Court judgments which consistently hold that compassionate appointment is not a right to be exercised at any time, nor is it a source of recruitment, but an urgent measure to tide over immediate hardship.

The court upheld the rejection of compassionate appointment for applicant no. 2, finding that the purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to address an immediate financial crisis, was not met due to the significant delay (over eleven years since the employee's death) and the fact that applicant no. 2 was not wholly dependent on the deceased.

All associated Miscellaneous Applications also stand disposed of.

No costs were awarded.