Compassionate appointment not a vested right; considered based on indigence, not elapsed time.

The applicant, Kishan Singh, son of the deceased employee Nema Singh Kulaste, sought compassionate appointment after his father's death on April 24, 2014, while in service

The applicant submitted an application for compassionate appointment, and respondents requested him to report for document verification via orders dated June 14, 2017, and January 19, 2021

Despite submitting all required documents, no action was taken, and on November 17, 2021, the applicant was informed that all appointments, including compassionate ones, were pending

The applicant resubmitted an application on November 30, 2023, and was again asked for document verification on January 8, 2024, but his claim remained undecided

The respondents contended that the applicant's case was considered twice by a Board of Officers in May 2018 and April 2024, but he was not recommended due to low merit, limited vacancies, and a 5% ceiling, which was communicated to him on August 30, 2018

Furthermore, a ban on recruitment, including compassionate appointments, was issued by the Ministry of Defence on November 18, 2024

Whether the respondents' action in not granting compassionate appointment to the applicant, despite multiple applications and document verifications, was unjust and unlawful

Whether the applicant had a vested right to compassionate appointment that could be exercised at any time

Whether the court could direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the applicant

The court relied on the established principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right but can only be considered if the family is in indigent circumstances, as held in *Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others – JT 1994(3) SC 525*

Key principles from *Umesh Kumar Nagpal* include: compassionate appointment is for dependents of employees dying in harness, leaving the family in penury, to tide over sudden crisis and relieve financial destitution; it is not a matter of course irrespective of financial condition; it cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period; and it is not a vested right

The court also cited *Union Bank of India & Ors. M.T. Katheesh – 2006 SCC (L&S) 1646* and *Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar & Ors – JT 1994 (2) SC 183* to affirm that courts cannot direct appointment but can only direct consideration of claims

The scope of judicial review is limited, and the court cannot substitute its opinion on the merits of such a case

The court noted that the applicant's father died in 2014, and the family had survived for several years, which undermined the urgency typically associated with compassionate appointments

The court acknowledged that the respondents had considered the applicant's case twice, in May 2018 and April 2024, analyzing various parameters, including financial condition, and found him to have low merit against the 5% ceiling and limited vacancies

The court found no procedural infirmity in the respondents' actions

Applying the principles from *Umesh Kumar Nagpal*, the court emphasized that compassionate appointment is not a right or a permanent solution, but a measure to address immediate financial distress

The court further highlighted that based on the *Umesh Kumar Nagpal* judgment, compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a reasonable period, nor is it a vested right

The existence of a recent ban on all recruitment, including compassionate appointments, by the Ministry of Defence further complicated the applicant's claim

The court reiterated that judicial bodies could only direct consideration of a claim, not compel appointment

The court held that the applicant had failed to meet the conditions for compassionate appointment as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana*

The court found no procedural infirmity in the respondents' decision, as the applicant's case had been considered twice on merits

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for interference with the respondents' decision

There were no orders as to costs