Compassionate appointment is not a vested right; financial hardship must be objectively established.

The applicant’s father, Ashwini Kumar Tiwari, an Assistant Audit Officer (Ad hoc) in the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Ranchi, died in harness on 3 November 2022. The applicant, his daughter, sought compassionate appointment.

The deceased employee’s wife was receiving family pension from the Accountant General’s office and pensionary benefits arising from his prior service as an ex-serviceman; the family had also received terminal benefits and owned a 3-BHK flat subject to a housing loan. The applicant’s brother was employed by a private company in Bengaluru.

The Departmental Screening Committee considered the applicant’s claim under the applicable point-based scheme and awarded her 70 out of 165 marks. It did not recommend her appointment, concluding that the family possessed sufficient financial means and was not in a condition of penury.

The recommendation was approved by the competent authority and communicated to the applicant on 10 October 2023.

The applicant challenged the Screening Committee’s decision, contending that marks had been wrongly deducted for the family’s residential flat and her brother’s private employment. She also relied upon her mother’s medical loan, her brother’s alleged severance of ties with the family, and instances of compassionate appointments granted to other candidates.

1. Whether the applicant had a vested or enforceable right to compassionate appointment merely because her father died in harness?

2. Whether the respondents’ decision-making process was contrary to the governing scheme or arbitrary, irrational, or based on irrelevant considerations?

3. Whether the alleged errors in awarding marks for the residential flat and the employment of the applicant’s brother warranted interference by the Tribunal?

4. Whether the applicant established discrimination or unequal treatment by relying upon compassionate appointment cases involving other candidates?

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general constitutional requirement that public employment comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; it is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to a family facing destitution after the death of its breadwinner and does not create a hereditary or vested right to public employment.

The Tribunal relied on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138, which held that compassionate appointment is meant to enable the family to overcome the sudden crisis caused by the employee’s death, and MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583, which reaffirmed that mere death in harness does not create an entitlement.

The Tribunal also relied upon the principle that the family’s overall financial condition must be assessed by considering income, assets, liabilities, terminal benefits, and other relevant circumstances under the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 2 August 2022 and the CAG’s point-based Circular No. 14 dated 20 April 2022.

It further referred to Union Bank of India v. M.T. Lateesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350, for the principle that the specialised authority entrusted with evaluating compassionate appointment claims is better placed to assess the facts and that its objective findings should not ordinarily be disturbed.

The Tribunal found that the Screening Committee had considered the relevant financial circumstances, including the family’s dual pensionary income, terminal benefits, residential property, housing-loan liability, and the employment of the applicant’s brother. The applicant failed to establish that these facts were wrongly recorded or ignored.

The existence of a housing loan did not automatically require the residential flat to be excluded from the assessment, since an outstanding loan does not by itself eliminate the borrower’s proprietary interest in the property.

Similarly, the applicant’s assertion that her brother had severed ties with the family was unsupported by adequate evidence, and the Committee was entitled to consider the existence of an earning family member under the applicable scheme.

The Tribunal held that the provision permitting consideration of a claim despite the existence of an earning family member did not mean that such employment had to be disregarded altogether; rather, it remained one factor in the overall financial assessment.

The applicant’s reliance on appointments granted to candidates in another case did not establish discrimination because she failed to show that the cases involved the same scheme, parameters, vacancy position, financial circumstances, and materially identical facts.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review, the Tribunal held that it could not substitute its own assessment for that of the Screening Committee or re-score individual components merely because the applicant disagreed with the allocation of marks. No material document was shown to have been deliberately ignored, and the Committee’s conclusion was neither perverse nor so irrational that no reasonable authority could have reached it.

The rejection of her claim was based on a permissible assessment of the family’s financial condition and was not arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to the applicable policy.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed OA/051/00471/2024, declined to interfere with the Screening Committee’s decision dated 7 September 2023 and the consequential communication dated 10 October 2023, disposed of MA/051/00233/2025, and made no order as to costs.