Compassionate appointment requires proof of financial hardship, not merely an employee’s death in service.

The applicant’s father, a Railway employee, died in service on 19 January 2024.

His wife had predeceased him, leaving the applicant as his surviving family member.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment, but the respondents rejected his claim by order dated 29 February 2024, citing his age and marital status, the absence of any liability left by the deceased employee, and the settlement dues of approximately ₹8.75 lakh paid to him.

The applicant challenged that order before the Tribunal, contending that it had been passed without proper consideration of his circumstances

1. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was unsustainable because he was an adult and married

2. Whether the applicant’s circumstances established the financial crisis required to justify compassionate appointment

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary rules of public recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, not a vested right or an independent source of recruitment.

Its purpose is to provide immediate assistance to a deceased employee’s family facing sudden financial hardship; the mere fact of death in service does not create entitlement.

In assessing financial need, the authority must consider relevant circumstances, including family income and liabilities, terminal benefits, and members’ age, dependency and marital status.

The Tribunal relied on State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, Civil Appeal Nos. 8842–8855 of 2022, decided 3 March 2023, which restated these principles

The Tribunal accepted that marriage, by itself, is not a ground to reject a compassionate-appointment claim.

However, it found that the applicant was the sole surviving family member, that no liability had been left by his father for him to meet, and that he had received settlement dues of approximately ₹8.75 lakh.

Applying Debabrata Tiwari, the Tribunal concluded that the record did not establish the financial crisis necessary to warrant the exceptional relief of compassionate appointment.

It also found the authority relied on by the applicant distinguishable

All associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.