Compassionate appointment is governed by the policy in force when the application is considered.

Late Dhirendra Nath Mahato, a Group ‘D’/MTS employee in the Midnapore Division, died in harness on 6 November 2008. Applicant No. 2, his son, sought compassionate appointment; after deficiencies in the documentation were raised and addressed, the proposal was forwarded to the Circle Office in 2015.

The applicants later sought a decision through representations, including one dated 10 February 2023, and filed this O.A. seeking consideration under the rules in force at the time of the employee’s death and appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents stated that the applicant was considered by successive Circle Relaxation Committees (CRCs) under the Relative Merit Points System (RMPS), but his score was below that of the last recommended candidate in the relevant vacancy years.

Whether the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment had to be assessed under the policy in force on the date of his father’s death, rather than the policy in force when the application was considered.

Whether the respondents’ repeated consideration of the applicant’s claim under the RMPS, without recommending him because of his comparative merit score, warranted further directions from the Tribunal.

Under N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, a compassionate-appointment application is to be considered under the policy or scheme in force when the competent authority considers it; the date of the employee’s death does not, by itself, entitle the claimant to assessment under the policy then in force.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the basis that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is subject to the applicable departmental scheme, including comparative assessment under the RMPS and the prescribed vacancy ceiling, as stated by the respondents.

Applying N.C. Santosh, the Tribunal rejected the proposition that the claim had to be assessed under the policy applicable on the date of the employee’s death.

It found that the applicant’s claim had been placed before the CRC for vacancy years 2016–17, 2017–18, 2018 and 2019, and that his scores were below those of the last candidates recommended in those years. The Tribunal concluded that the assessments had been conducted objectively under the applicable RMPS and found no basis to interfere with the respondents’ consideration of the claim.

The O.A. was dismissed for lack of merit, without an order as to costs; the M.A. seeking permission to proceed jointly had already been allowed and disposed of.