Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and depends on financial need under the governing scheme.

The applicant’s father, an Assistant Accounts Officer, died in service on 7 March 2013.

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment, but the Departmental Screening Committee rejected his request by letter dated 6 January 2015; a subsequent representation was rejected on 22 April 2015.

The applicant challenged those orders, contending that the family’s financial hardship had not been properly assessed.

The respondents stated that the family received terminal benefits exceeding ₹16.73 lakh, apart from GPF, and that the widow received family pension and the family owned a residential house.

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s request for compassionate appointment warranted interference by the Tribunal.

Whether the authorities’ assessment of the family’s financial circumstances was sufficient to sustain the rejection.

The Tribunal treated compassionate appointment as an exception to the ordinary rule of open recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, intended to help a deceased government servant’s family meet the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of its breadwinner.

It is not a vested right and may be granted only in accordance with the applicable scheme.

The Tribunal referred to the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 16 January 2013 and the Headquarters Office Memorandum dated 9 March 2009 as the governing instructions for assessment.

The respondents also cited Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583, for the principle that compassionate appointment is not claimable as a matter of right.

The Tribunal found that the Screening Committee had undertaken a comparative assessment of the family’s financial condition.

It considered the terminal benefits exceeding ₹16.73 lakh, the family pension, and the family’s residential accommodation, and concluded that the assessment disclosed no ground for judicial interference.

As compassionate appointment is scheme-based rather than an entitlement, the Tribunal declined to substitute its assessment for that of the competent authority.

All pending applications were also dismissed, with no order as to costs.