Compassionate appointment is unavailable where delayed claims and financial assessment negate immediate indigence.

The applicant’s father, who was employed as a Dak Assistant, died in harness on 27 December 2004. The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 28 October 2015.

The Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) considered his case on 28 June 2017 but did not recommend it, as the applicant secured 63 points under the applicable assessment scheme, whereas the last selected candidate secured 65 points.

The applicant’s claim was consequently rejected by order dated 27 September 2017 on the ground that the family was not in an indigent condition compared with other more deserving cases.

The respondents also stated that the family had received terminal benefits of ₹2,23,493, apart from insurance benefits, and was receiving family pension of ₹3,900 per month plus admissible dearness relief.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment, based on the CRC’s comparative assessment and non-recommendation, was illegal or arbitrary

Whether the applicant remained entitled to compassionate appointment despite the substantial delay between the employee’s death in 2004 and the application submitted in 2015

Whether the applicant’s financial circumstances justified compassionate appointment under the applicable assessment scheme

The Tribunal applied the DoPT guidelines dated 20 January 2010, under which compassionate-appointment claims are assessed through a balanced and objective evaluation of the family’s financial condition, including family pension, terminal benefits, income, property, number of dependants, unmarried daughters, minor children, and the deceased employee’s remaining service.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that public employment must be filled through open competition and merit; it is intended only to provide immediate relief from the sudden financial crisis caused by the employee’s death in harness, and not to create an alternative source of recruitment.

Relying on Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanayagam, (2011) 13 SCC 42, the Tribunal held that an appointment made many years after the employee’s death, without present financial deprivation, would conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

It also relied on Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, AIR 2012 SC 2294, for the principle that compassionate appointment is a limited exception based on sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely because the claimant is a dependent of the deceased employee.

The Tribunal found that the CRC had applied the prescribed hundred-point assessment scheme and awarded the applicant 63 points, while the last selected candidate received 65 points.

The applicant had not disputed the break-up of the marks in his rejoinder, and the difference in marks, together with the limited number of vacancies, justified the CRC’s decision not to recommend his case.

The Tribunal also considered that the family had survived for nearly eleven years after the employee’s death before the application was made, and had received terminal benefits and family pension.

These circumstances indicated that the claim did not relate to the immediate financial crisis contemplated by the compassionate-appointment scheme.

Applying the principles in Selvanayagam and Shashank Goswami, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents’ comparative financial assessment and rejection of the claim did not disclose illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of the governing principles.

It held that the CRC’s assessment and the respondents’ refusal to recommend the applicant for compassionate appointment were lawful, particularly since he had secured fewer marks than the last selected candidate and had applied eleven years after his father’s death.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.