Compassionate Appointment Option Once Exercised Is Final and Substitution of Nominee Is Impermissible

The petitioner’s father, an employee at the Barauni Refinery of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), died in harness on February 1, 2017

On April 17, 2017, the petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate appointment for her elder son, Sanjeev Kumar Singh

The IOCL rejected this application because Sanjeev Kumar Singh was married and thus ineligible under the Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme (SABF Scheme)

The petitioner subsequently sought to be considered for the position, arguing that since the elder brother was never eligible, the IOCL should have permitted a change in nomination despite the expiry of the six-month limitation period

The petitioner challenged the rejection letter dated March 1, 2018

1. Whether the respondent IOCL was justified in rejecting the application for compassionate appointment based on the marital status of the nominee under the SABF Scheme

2. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to substitute his nomination after the initial option had been exercised and the prescribed time limit had expired

The court applied the provisions of the Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme (SABF Scheme) and Office Memo dated January 19, 2017, regarding dependency criteria under the Rehabilitation Scheme

The core legal principle established is that a "child" must maintain an unmarried status both at the time of the employee's death and at the time of application to qualify as a dependent

The "Option Once Exercised" rule (Clause VI of the SABF Scheme) dictates that a choice of nominee, once made, is final and immutable

The court reasoned that the elder brother, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, was demonstrably ineligible for appointment because he was married and had a child, thus failing the dependency criteria mandated by the SABF Scheme

The court held that Clause VI of the SABF Scheme contains an express prohibition against changing a nominee once the option is exercised

The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that a letter from an IOCL officer (initially inviting a fresh nomination) could override the formal scheme, stating that an individual officer's correspondence cannot alter the categorical and binding provisions of the SABF Scheme

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit