Compassionate appointment is for immediate financial relief and cannot be granted after an unreasonable lapse of time.

The 1st Applicant’s husband, S. Narasimha, while serving as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) at the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), went missing in 2004

Following a 2015 Tribunal order (OA No. 323/2015) regarding pensionary benefits, the 1st Applicant requested compassionate ground appointment (CGA) for her son, the 2nd Applicant, in March 2015; a formal application followed in December 2015

The Respondents initially delayed processing due to discrepancies in family records and later issued circulars in 2020 and 2021 stating that the MTS cadre was over-saturated and that new guidelines would apply prospectively

During the pendency of the current OA, a Central Recommendation Committee (CRC) reviewed the case on 15.07.2025 under the "Compassionate Appointment Policy 2024"

The CRC found the family had managed for over 20 years, possessed a monthly income of ₹53,770, and the 2nd Applicant did not rank within the top five candidates for MTS vacancies based on the "degree of penury"

1. Whether the 2nd Applicant was entitled to compassionate appointment despite a significant lapse of time between the employee going missing (2004) and the application for CGA (2015)

2. Whether the prospective application of the 2021 revised guidelines and the subsequent 2024 policy was arbitrary or unconstitutional

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) OM dated 16.01.2013, which stipulates that CGA for missing employees is not a matter of right and requires an "immediate need of assistance" to relieve economic distress

Supreme Court’s ruling in Auditor General of India v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao, which held that CGA must be confined to families in immediate need

Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanayagam, which established that appointments made many years after the death/disappearance of an employee conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

EPFO "Compassionate Appointment Policy 2024" regarding the comparative assessment of penury

The Tribunal found that the essential purpose of CGA—to provide immediate relief to a family in sudden financial crisis—was not met in this case.

Although the employee went missing in 2004 and was declared untraced in 2011, the applicants waited until 2015 to seek CGA, a delay that remained unsatisfactorily explained

The Tribunal noted that the family’s survival for over two decades constituted adequate proof of "dependable means of subsistence," negating the claim of "immediate distress"

The financial assessment conducted by the CRC in 2025 revealed a total family income of approximately ₹53,770, leading the court to agree that the family was not in penurious circumstances warranting an exception to regular recruitment rules

The court rejected the applicants' contention that there is no time limit for CGA, emphasizing that it is an exceptional measure and not a vested right that can be exercised indefinitely

It concluded that a request made 11 years after the disappearance of the employee (and nearly 4 years after the "untraced" police report) does not satisfy the requirement of "immediate assistance"

The Tribunal affirmed the CRC's 2025 findings that the 2nd Applicant did not meet the required threshold of penury relative to other applicants

The Original Application was dismissed