Compassionate appointment is not a vested right once the family’s financial crisis has been overcome.

The applicant’s mother, Ms. Meera, a Safai Karamchari employed with the North Central Railway, died in harness on 28 August 2018. The applicant, her adopted son, was a minor at the time of her death.

After attaining majority on 2 November 2021, he submitted representations seeking family pension and appointment on compassionate grounds. He subsequently obtained his Intermediate qualification and again sought compassionate appointment on a suitable Group C/Class III post.

The respondents stated that the applicant’s claim had been examined through a welfare-inspector’s inquiry and rejected by order dated 4 April 2022.

They relied on the fact that the applicant was receiving family pension of ₹17,000 per month plus dearness relief, was entitled to pension until the age of 25 years, and had received settlement dues of ₹13,32,327.

It was also found that he was the sole surviving dependent and that no liability of the deceased employee remained to be discharged by him.

The applicant did not challenge the rejection order dated 4 April 2022 in the original application.

Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds after attaining majority, despite the respondents’ rejection of his claim on the basis of his financial circumstances and receipt of family pension and settlement dues.

Whether the delay arising from the applicant’s minority and the subsequent lapse of time defeated the object of compassionate appointment, which is intended to address the immediate financial crisis caused by the employee’s death.

Whether the applicant could obtain relief without specifically challenging the respondents’ rejection order dated 4 April 2022.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary constitutional requirement of recruitment consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; it is a concession and not a vested or enforceable right.

Its object is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee facing sudden financial crisis, and not to create an alternative source of recruitment or a hereditary right to public employment.

The Court relied on State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, Civil Appeals Nos. 8842–8855 of 2022, decided on 3 March 2023, which, drawing upon Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed Mir and Shashi Kumar, held that compassionate appointment must ordinarily be immediate and cannot be claimed after the financial crisis has passed.

In assessing financial crisis, the authority may consider family income, liabilities, terminal benefits, age, dependency, marital status and other sources of income.

The Court also distinguished Ganesh Shankar Shukla, which concerned rejection on technical grounds of delay and laches, whereas the applicant’s claim here had been considered and rejected on merits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim had not been ignored: it had been examined by the competent authority after a welfare inquiry and rejected by a reasoned order dated 4 April 2022.

Applying the principles in Debabrata Tiwari, the Tribunal held that the purpose of compassionate appointment was not satisfied because the applicant was receiving regular family pension of ₹17,000 plus dearness relief, was entitled to receive it until the age of 25 years, and had already received settlement dues of ₹13,32,327.

The applicant was also the only person left behind by the deceased employee and no continuing liability requiring immediate employment was shown.

Consequently, the circumstances did not demonstrate the continuing financial crisis necessary to justify an exception to the normal recruitment process.

The reliance on Ganesh Shankar Shukla was held misplaced because, unlike that case, the respondents had decided the applicant’s claim on merits. The failure to challenge the rejection order further weakened the claim.

It held that compassionate appointment was neither a matter of right nor warranted on the facts, since the applicant’s claim had been duly considered, he was receiving family pension and had received substantial settlement dues, and no continuing financial crisis was established.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, all associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.