Compassionate appointment denied if employee not in service at death or family not in immediate destitution.

The applicant, Nayanthaara Menon, sought compassionate appointment after her father, K.K. Reghunandanan, an employee of the Income Tax Department, passed away on October 23, 2013.

K.K. Reghunandanan had joined service in 1987 but was dismissed in 2005 due to involvement in a criminal case.

His wife pursued a criminal appeal, which resulted in his acquittal by judgment dated December 18, 2020 (Annexure A-8).

Following the acquittal, the applicant's mother received retirement benefits, including an arrear of pension amounting to Rs. 22,90,338/-, and a family pension of Rs. 18,500/- plus DR per month.

The applicant, being the only child, submitted a representation for compassionate appointment on November 22, 2021 (Annexure A-4).

This application was rejected by Annexure A-6 order dated May 20, 2024.

The rejection was based on grounds that the eligibility criteria under DoPT OM dated August 2, 2022 were not met, the family could manage financially, there was a delay of 10 years in applying, and the applicant had not established a right under the scheme.

The applicant challenged this rejection before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the applicant was eligible for compassionate appointment when her father died after being dismissed from service, and not "while in service".

2. Whether the delay in submitting the application for compassionate appointment was justifiable.

3. Whether the family of the deceased employee was in "financial destitution" to warrant compassionate appointment under the scheme.

The court primarily applied Clause 2(A)(a) of Annexure A-7 Scheme, which stipulates that compassionate appointment benefits are available to dependent family members of a Government servant who "dies while in service".

The court also referred to Clause 5(a) of Annexure A-7, which defines the purpose of the scheme, stating that eligibility for compassionate appointment is available to a family that is "indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution".

Furthermore, the court reiterated the established legal principle, derived from multiple Supreme Court cases, that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but rather an enabling measure for a family to overcome an "immediate crisis" resulting from the employee's death.

The Tribunal found that the core requirement for compassionate appointment, as per Clause 2(A)(a) of Annexure A-7, was not met because the applicant's father was dismissed from service in 2005 and died on October 23, 2013, meaning he was not "while in service" at the time of his death.

The applicant's counsel argued that the cause of action arose only after the acquittal in 2020, justifying the delay, but the Tribunal implicitly rejected this, noting the father died in 2013.

The Tribunal further observed that the family's financial situation did not indicate "indigence" or "financial destitution" (Clause 5(a) of Annexure A-7), as the applicant's mother was employed as a teacher, received substantial pension arrears, and a monthly family pension.

The elapsed period of 10 years between the father's death and the application also showed that the family had "tide[d] over the difficult situation," contradicting the fundamental purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to address an "immediate crisis".

The Original Application failed and was dismissed on the grounds that the father was not "in service" at the time of his death, the family's financial circumstances did not meet the "indigent" criteria required by the scheme, and there was a substantial delay in filing the application, indicating the family had already overcome any immediate crisis.

No costs were awarded.