Daughter obtaining divorce after employee's death is ineligible for compassionate appointment as a dependent family member.

The applicant’s father, a Telephone Mechanic with BSNL, died in service on February 15, 2016

The applicant, claiming to be a divorced daughter who was financially dependent on her father, sought a compassionate appointment

Although she claimed to have been separated from her husband for 13 years, she only filed for divorce on July 14, 2016, and the decree was granted on December 19, 2016—both events occurring after her father’s death

The respondents rejected her claim on July 10, 2023, stating her name was absent from the deceased's service records and she did not qualify as a "dependent family member" at the time of the employee's death

The applicant challenged this rejection, asserting that her status as a divorced daughter entitled her to consideration

1. Whether a daughter who initiates and obtains a divorce after the death of the government employee can be classified as a "dependent family member" for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

2. Whether the absence of the applicant's name in the official service records of the deceased employee precludes her from being considered for compassionate appointment.

The Tribunal applied the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum No. 14014/02/2012-Estt (D), which restricts compassionate appointments to "dependent family members" at the time of the employee's death

Circular No. 1/13/09-P & W, which stipulates that a divorced daughter is eligible for benefits only if divorce proceedings were initiated during the employee's lifetime

The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka v. V. Somyashree (2021), which held that a daughter who is married at the time of the parent’s death and obtains a divorce subsequently is ineligible for compassionate appointment

The Tribunal noted the principle from Tinku v. State of Haryana (2024) that compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment rules and not a vested right

The Tribunal reasoned that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be determined based on the status of the applicant on the date of the employee's death

In this case, the applicant’s father died on February 15, 2016, while her divorce proceedings did not commence until July 14, 2016

Consequently, at the time of death, the applicant was legally married and could not be classified as a "divorced daughter" or a "dependent" under the relevant DoPT guidelines

The Tribunal further observed that her name was not listed in the deceased's Form-3 service records, undermining her claim of dependency

Citing V. Somyashree, the Tribunal emphasized that obtaining a divorce by mutual consent post-death is often a strategic move to gain employment and does not satisfy the legal requirement of being a dependent at the time of the crisis

The Tribunal concluded that the divorce initiated after the employee's demise does not retroactively grant the status of a dependent

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit

No order as to costs was made