Compassionate appointment is unsustainable after two decades as the objective of mitigating sudden financial crisis extinguishes.

The petitioner’s father, an employee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), died in harness on April 2, 2005

The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment on May 16, 2005

On January 14, 2020, the respondents informed him that his application had been rejected on July 6, 2015, as he secured only 39 points out of 100 under the BSNL Compassionate Appointment Policy, 2007, whereas the minimum threshold was 55 points

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the petitioner's challenge on the grounds of limitation and merits

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the claim for compassionate appointment is maintainable after a lapse of twenty years from the date of the employee's death

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim should have been governed by the DOPT Policy of 1998 (prevalent at the time of death) or the BSNL Policy of 2007 (prevalent at the time of consideration)

3. Whether the weightage point system under the 2007 Policy is discriminatory and arbitrary

Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, which held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of merit-based public recruitment and is intended solely to enable a family to tide over a sudden financial crisis

State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, which established that if a family survives for a substantial period after the death of the breadwinner, the necessity for compassionate appointment ceases to exist

SBI v. Raj Kumar, affirming that since compassionate appointment is a concession and not a vested right, the scheme in force at the time of actual consideration of the application applies

The Court observed that over twenty years have passed since the death of the petitioner’s father

During this period, the family survived and the petitioner completed an engineering degree, which the court interpreted as a lack of immediate penury or destitution

The court found the petitioner's reliance on Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa misplaced, noting that unlike that case—where the authorities were solely responsible for delay—here, the petitioner remained silent for over a decade without meaningful follow-up

The Court held that the 2007 Policy merely structured the implementation of the 1998 guidelines to ensure objectivity

Even if the 1998 Policy were applied, the claim would fail because the "sudden crisis" required for such an appointment has long passed

The Court declined to interfere with the 2007 Policy’s weightage system, ruling that the formulation of financial indigence criteria falls within the employer's policy-making domain

The Court concluded that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after the lapse of a reasonable period, as the foundational purpose of mitigating a sudden financial emergency is extinguished by the passage of time

The Court found no perversity in the CAT’s findings regarding limitation and merits