Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be granted after long delay or family survival.

The applicant’s father, an employee of BSNL, died in harness on 12.10.2005.

The applicant claimed to have applied for compassionate appointment in 2009.

His case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) under the 2014 Policy/Circular, where he was awarded 61 points.

His name was placed on the waiting list in three successive reviews (2016, 2017, and 2018) but was ultimately rejected via order dated 06.10.2018.

The applicant challenged this rejection, contending his case should have been governed by the O.M. dated 09.10.1998, which was prevalent at the time of his application.

1. Whether the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment should be governed by the policy prevalent at the time of the employee's death/application (1998 O.M.) or the policy at the time of consideration (2014 Circular).

2. Whether the lapse of 14 years since the death of the breadwinner renders the claim for compassionate appointment unsustainable.

The principles of compassionate appointment as a non-vested right intended for immediate financial relief, rather than a standard mode of recruitment.

The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi regarding the applicability of policies.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand regarding the governance of such claims by specific government policies.

Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, which established that compassionate appointment is only for families in "indigent circumstances" to "tide over sudden crisis".

State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, which held that survival of the family over a long period negates the need for such appointment.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant sought consideration under the 1998 O.M., Clause 8 of that specific O.M. emphasizes that compassionate appointment is for "immediate assistance" and that survival over several years is "adequate proof" of dependable means of subsistence.

The court noted that the applicant failed to provide documentary evidence of his 2009 application.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents had followed due process by reviewing the case thrice between 2016 and 2018 under the points-based system.

Applying the Umesh Kumar Nagpal "litmus test," the court reasoned that because the family survived from 2005 to 2019, the "emergency" or "financial destitution" required to justify bypassing Article 14 (equality of opportunity in public employment) no longer existed.

The scope of judicial review was deemed limited as there was no procedural infirmity in the CRC's evaluation.

The Tribunal held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of 14 years when the family has managed to survive.

The Original Application (O.A. No. 762/2019) was dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs were ordered.