Compassionate appointment rejection based on a committee decision prior to receiving requested applicant data is mathematically unsustainable.

The applicant’s father, a Tradesman-E at VECC Kolkata, died in harness on 03.06.2007

The applicant’s mother applied for compassionate appointment in August 2007, which was rejected in 2008

Following multiple rounds of litigation (O.A. 1572/2015 and O.A. 350/1395/2016), the Tribunal directed the respondents to re-examine the case

In purported compliance, the respondents issued a letter on 12.04.2023 asking the applicant for updated information, which he submitted on 18.04.2023

However, the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) had already met and rejected the claim on 16.03.2023, leading to a final speaking order of rejection dated 08.06.2023

The applicant challenged this order, alleging non-application of mind and improper evaluation

1. Whether the respondents' rejection of the claim was procedurally flawed by failing to consider information solicited from the applicant

2. Whether the financial status/terminal benefits of the deceased’s family can be considered when evaluating indigence for compassionate appointment

3. Which scheme (1998 or current) governs the consideration of the applicant's case

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum of 1998 regarding compassionate appointments, which emphasizes relieving financial destitution

The principle from Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) and Secretary to Government v. Bheemesh (2021) that the scheme prevalent at the time of the employee's death or initial consideration generally applies

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and requires a rigorous assessment of the family's indigence, including terminal benefits as established in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025) and Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994)

The Tribunal found that the date of consideration for the scheme's application should be 2008, meaning the 1998 Scheme applies

While the applicant argued that terminal benefits should be excluded based on Govind Prakash Verma (2005), the Tribunal noted that subsequent Apex Court rulings like Ajithkumar G.K. (2025) mandate a balanced assessment of all assets, including pension and terminal dues, to determine if the family is in "penury"

However, the Tribunal identified a fatal procedural error: the respondents asked the applicant for fresh data on 12.04.2023 but the CAC had already decided to reject the case on 16.03.2023

This rendered the "reconsideration" a mere formality, as the committee could not have factored in the information the applicant provided in response to the department's own request

The Tribunal quashed the speaking order dated 08.06.2023 and the CAC minutes dated 16.03.2023. The respondents were directed to conduct a fresh consideration of the applicant’s case under the 1998 Scheme, specifically incorporating the details from the April 2023 representation, within 120 days