Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and depends on relative indigence and vacancy limitations.

The applicant is the son of Late Shri Mohan Lal Kuril, who died in harness while working as a Mail Man on 01.11.2008

The applicant applied for a compassionate appointment, which was initially rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) in 2011

His case was reconsidered in 2012 but was again rejected due to a lack of merit points compared to other candidates

The applicant challenged the final communication dated 11.01.2017, which closed his case, seeking a direction for appointment

1. Whether the applicant has a vested right to claim compassionate appointment as an alternative to normal recruitment

2. Whether the decision of the CRC to reject the applicant’s case—based on a comparative point-scale assessment and limited vacancy quota—was legally sustainable

The court applied the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines, specifically OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 09.10.1998 and Letter No. 37-30/2000 SPB-1/C dated 20.01.2010, which mandate an objective 100-point scale assessment of indigence and restrict appointments to 5% of the direct recruitment quota

It relied on the precedent set in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, which established that compassionate appointment is not a right but a means to tide over immediate financial crises

Additionally, it cited Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Nirval Singh, noting that significant delays in seeking relief extinguish the objective of "immediate amelioration"

The Tribunal analyzed the respondents' submission that the applicant’s case was evaluated twice (in 2011 and 2012) using the prescribed merit-point system

In both instances, the applicant scored fewer points than the last selected candidates within the restricted 5% quota for Postman/MTS cadres

The Tribunal reasoned that since nine years had passed since the employee's death (2008 to 2017), the "sudden crisis" justifying such an appointment no longer existed

The fact that the family survived the interim period indicated they had the wherewithal to withstand the financial loss, thereby failing the test of indigence required by the scheme

The Court held that the CRC had correctly applied the merit-point guidelines and that the application lacked merit. The Original Application was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of