Compassionate appointment is a concession governed strictly by scheme terms, not a fundamental right.

The petitioner is the son of a deceased Southern Railway employee who died on 05.10.2004.

Prior to the employee's death, his wife (the petitioner’s mother) had obtained a decree of divorce and maintenance from a Family Court.

The petitioner first applied for compassionate appointment in 2008, four years after the death, which was rejected in 2010 on the grounds that he was not a dependent of the deceased.

A second application filed in 2013 was also rejected in 2014, with the authorities stating the deceased was not the family's breadwinner at the time of death.

Following a Contempt Petition in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the petitioner was briefly engaged as a Trainee Helper, but his claim for permanent appointment was ultimately rejected on 27.05.2019 due to lack of minimum educational qualifications.

The petitioner challenged the CAT’s order in Contempt Petition No. CP/310/00081/2024.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment despite the dissolution of his parents' marriage and the delay in application.

2. Whether the second application for compassionate appointment was maintainable after the first rejection had reached finality.

3. Whether the petitioner met the eligibility criteria regarding educational qualifications as stipulated under the relevant Scheme.

The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is a "concession" and not a "constitutional scheme of appointment".

Such schemes must be implemented strictly according to the specific terms and conditions stipulated therein.

The court relied on the principle of finality, noting that once a rejection order remains unchallenged, subsequent applications on the same grounds are untenable.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner's mother was divorced from the deceased at the time of his death, the Railway Authorities correctly determined that the family was not dependent on the deceased employee as the "breadwinner".

The court found a significant procedural lapse: the 2008 application was filed four years post-demise, and its 2010 rejection was never challenged, making the 2013 application and subsequent litigation through the CAT legally unsustainable.

On merits, the court observed that the petitioner lacked the "minimum educational qualification" required for the post.

It also noted that a similar claim by the son of the deceased's second wife had already been rejected by the court in prior writ petitions, reinforcing the decision to deny relief.

The Court affirmed that the Tribunal’s decision was in consonance with the facts and the terms of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme.