Departmental delay cannot deny an applicant fair consideration for compassionate appointment.

The applicant’s father, a Postman, died in service on 7 September 2015.

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 18 January 2016.

The respondents maintained that the prescribed documents were completed only in 2018; the applicant alleged that departmental delay and failure to assist his family prevented timely consideration.

His case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) for vacancy year 2017–18, where he scored 44 points, compared with 48 points for the last approved candidate, and was not recommended.

The applicant challenged the rejection orders dated 19 December 2019 and 8 January 2021, arguing that he should have been considered in earlier vacancy years, when the last recommended candidates reportedly scored 39 points.

Whether the respondents’ failure to guide and assist the applicant, and their delay in processing his application, denied him timely and fair consideration under the compassionate appointment scheme.

Whether the applicant was entitled to fresh consideration as a candidate whose case should have been considered against the 2016–17 vacancies, notwithstanding that those vacancies had already been filled.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the basis for the application.

Under the compassionate appointment scheme dated 9 October 1998, including paragraph 13, the Welfare Officer is required to meet, advise and assist the deceased employee’s family regarding the application and its formalities.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment, intended to address immediate financial hardship; it is not a right or hereditary entitlement, and eligibility or a merit-point score alone does not guarantee appointment.

The Tribunal relied on Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, 2022 INSC 617, for the principle that completed applications for compassionate appointment should be decided promptly, ordinarily within six months.

It also applied the Department’s instructions dated 13 January 2016 concerning the CRC consideration schedule and referred to the 26 July 2012 instruction withdrawing the three-year time limit for making compassionate appointments.

The Tribunal distinguished the respondents’ reliance on DPC scheduling instructions as irrelevant to CRC consideration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant applied soon after his father’s death and that the respondents had not shown effective assistance or follow-up after their initial document request.

In light of the Welfare Officer’s duty under the scheme, the delay could not be placed entirely on the applicant merely because a document was furnished later.

The applicant’s completed case reached the Regional Office on 20 March 2018, yet was not considered in the relevant CRC process for 2016–17, despite the applicable scheduling instructions and his score of 44 points, compared with 39 points for the last recommended candidates in the earlier years.

The Tribunal held that compassionate appointment was not automatic, but that the departmental failure had deprived the applicant of fair consideration; the later rejection for 2017–18 did not answer that grievance.

It set aside the impugned orders to the extent that they denied him fair consideration, and directed the respondents to place his case before the competent CRC for fresh consideration as a 2016–17 case, without disturbing appointments already made.

If found eligible and sufficiently deserving, he is to be considered for appointment against an upcoming available vacancy in accordance with the rules.

The respondents were also directed to pay the applicant ₹25,000 in costs within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.