Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and requires meeting the prescribed merit-based weightage benchmark.

The applicant’s father, a Telephone Mechanic at BSNL, died in a train accident on March 13, 2013

The applicant sought compassionate appointment via multiple applications between 2013 and 2017

His claim was initially rejected on February 9, 2016, on the grounds that he secured only 20 marks out of 100 in the 2014 committee meeting

After a previous round of litigation (OA No. 202/223/2017), the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide on his appeal

Upon reconsideration by a High Power Committee on October 17, 2017, the applicant's marks were increased to 43 based on weightage for dependents and pension

However, this remained below the qualifying benchmark of 55 points; consequently, his claim was rejected via order dated December 20, 2017

The applicant challenged this rejection, alleging irregularities in the marking system and vacancy calculations

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was legally sustainable given that his score (43) was below the prescribed benchmark (55)

2. Whether the present application is barred by the principles of res judicata and the law of limitation

The court applied the BSNL Policy dated June 27, 2007, which utilizes a "Weightage Point System" to assess indigence, requiring a minimum of 55 points for consideration

It relied on the precedent from Maneet Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018), establishing that compassionate appointment is a mode to salvage a family from "instant financial penury" rather than a vested right or privilege

Further, it cited Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das (2008) and State of Gujarat v. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari (2012), affirming that such appointments must strictly adhere to administrative rules and financial assessments

Finally, it applied the doctrine of res judicata to prevent re-litigation of the same cause of action

The Tribunal found that the High Power Committee had properly re-evaluated the applicant's case, even increasing his marks from 20 to 43 after considering dependent data and terminal benefits

However, as the score remained below the mandatory benchmark of 55, the applicant was correctly classified as "non-indigent" under the BSNL policy

The court noted that the family had received terminal benefits exceeding Rs. 11 lakhs and a monthly pension of Rs. 15,091, mitigating the immediate financial crisis

Regarding procedure, the Tribunal observed that the applicant was attempting to re-agitate issues already settled in a previous OA, thereby violating res judicata

Additionally, the application was filed with a five-month delay without a formal condonation request, making it barred by limitation

The court answered in the negative regarding the applicant's entitlement, holding that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of time or in the absence of immediate penury

The Original Application was dismissed on both merits and procedural grounds (limitation and res judicata)

No costs were awarded