Compassionate appointment may be denied when prolonged survival shows absence of immediate financial crisis.

The applicant’s father, a Senior Auditor in the respondents’ organisation, died in service on 1 November 2012.

The applicant’s mother applied for his compassionate appointment on 21 January 2013.

The Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) considered the applicant’s case in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2018, but deferred it for consideration in subsequent years subject to availability of vacancies.

On 2 February 2022, the DSC considered seven pending cases and recommended five candidates for appointment as MTS; the applicant, who scored 85 out of 165 marks, was not recommended.

The DSC found that all family members were major when the deceased employee died, the family owned a double-storey house in Delhi, had substantial bank deposits, had no current liabilities, and had survived for more than nine years after the death.

The respondents consequently rejected the applicant’s claim by order dated 23 June 2022.

The applicant challenged the rejection under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, alleging discrimination because two other candidates who also scored 85 marks were appointed and asserting that vacancies were available in 2022.

1. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment, despite his having been considered on earlier occasions and having secured the same marks as two selected candidates, was arbitrary or discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment against vacancies allegedly available in 2022 or against future vacancies merely because his case had previously been deferred.

3. Whether the speaking order dated 23 June 2022 and the DSC minutes dated 2 February 2022 disclosed any illegality or procedural irregularity warranting judicial interference.

The Tribunal applied the scheme governing compassionate appointment under the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 16 January 2013, under which up to 5% of direct-recruitment vacancies in Group ‘C’ posts may be earmarked for compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to a deceased employee’s family facing financial destitution and is not an alternative mode of regular recruitment; therefore, the relevant consideration is the family’s financial condition and continuing need at the time of consideration.

The Tribunal also considered the DoP&T OM dated 30 May 2013, which provides that recommendations cannot be made against future vacancies, although pending cases may be reconsidered in subsequent years subject to the applicable scheme and vacancy position.

The constitutional claim under Articles 14 and 16 was assessed on the principle that similarly situated candidates must be treated alike, but candidates with identical marks may legitimately receive different treatment where their underlying financial and family circumstances are materially different.

The Tribunal found no defect in the applicant’s earlier consideration, observing that he had not previously been recommended for appointment and had merely been deferred for reconsideration subject to vacancy availability.

In relation to the 2022 selection, the Tribunal compared the three candidates who scored 85 marks.

The two selected candidates had minor children, higher remaining service periods of approximately 11 years, and different family and financial circumstances, whereas the applicant’s family had no minor children, consisted of major dependants, owned a house, had no current liabilities, and had sustained itself for over nine years after the employee’s death.

The Tribunal therefore held that equal marks did not establish discrimination because the candidates were not similarly situated in terms of financial distress and family dependence.

The existence of six vacancies disclosed through the RTI response did not create an automatic right to appointment, since the applicant’s claim had independently been rejected on the ground that the family was no longer in immediate financial crisis.

Further, the earlier deferrals did not confer an enforceable right to appointment against future vacancies, particularly in view of the applicable DoP&T instructions.

The Tribunal accordingly found the DSC’s recommendation and the consequential speaking order neither arbitrary nor illegal.

It held that the rejection of compassionate appointment was supported by relevant factors concerning the family’s financial condition, dependants, property, liabilities and the substantial lapse of time, and that the applicant was not discriminated against merely because two other candidates with the same score were appointed.

The OA was dismissed for want of merit; no order as to costs was made, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.