Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and cannot be granted bypassing eligibility criteria and penury assessments.

The petitioner’s husband died on 14.10.2015 while serving in the Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam.

The petitioner claimed to have applied for compassionate appointment on 29.12.2015, but failed to provide proof of receipt by the respondents until 2019.

Following a direction from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in a previous application (OA.No.511/2023), the authorities rejected the claim on 11.10.2023.

The rejection was based on the son’s overage, lack of educational qualifications (not passing 10th standard), and failure to meet the minimum merit points.

The CAT upheld this rejection in OA/310/00966/2024 on 30.01.2026; the petitioner then moved the High Court to quash the CAT’s order.

1. Whether the delay in establishing the initial application and the subsequent rejection based on eligibility criteria under the DOPT Scheme justified the denial of compassionate appointment.

2. Whether the family of the deceased could be considered in "indigent circumstances" despite the receipt of substantial terminal benefits and family pension.

Master Circular governing the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment issued via DoPT O.M. No. 14014/1/2022-Estt(D) dated 02.08.2022.

Compassionate appointment is a "concession" and a "special scheme"—not a vested right—intended strictly to mitigate immediate penury.

Article 16 of the Constitution mandates equal opportunity in public employment, meaning such appointments must be restricted to truly deserving cases to avoid infringing upon the rights of meritorious candidates in open competition.

The court found no evidence that the petitioner submitted a timely application following the 2015 death, noting that the first reliable acknowledgment appeared only in 2019.

Upon evaluating the merits, the court noted that the son, Shri. Jaiganesh, was 31 years old at the time of death and lacked the minimum educational qualification (10th standard).

The court observed that the family was not in a state of "penury," as they had received a revised family pension of ₹16,000 per month, arrears of ₹3,27,861, and terminal benefits (DCRG, etc.) totaling ₹8,42,654.

The court reasoned that since both children were married and lived independently at the time of the employee's death, they were not "dependents" as defined by the scheme.

The court emphasized that providing large-scale compassionate appointments would lead to administrative inefficiency and violate the constitutional mandate of merit-based recruitment.

The court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and cannot be granted when the family is not in indigent circumstances and the applicant fails to meet age and educational criteria.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.