Discretionary Power to Relax Age Limits in Compassionate Appointments is Not a Vested Legal Right

The applicant is the widow of Late Bashir Ahmad Mapnoo, who died in harness on March 6, 2018, while serving as I/C Naib Tehsildar

Following his death, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994 on March 16, 2018

Although multiple subordinate authorities, including the Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner, recommended her case and noted the family's financial distress, the Revenue Department rejected her claim via communication dated July 4, 2019

The rejection was grounded on the fact that the applicant exceeded the upper age limit and her case was not covered under the relaxation policy or SRO-120 of 2018

During proceedings, it was revealed the family received approximately ₹29.5 lakhs in retiral benefits and a monthly family pension of ₹40,669

1. Whether the applicant has a vested legal right to claim relaxation of the upper age limit for compassionate appointment under Rule 7 of SRO-43 of 1994

2. Whether the recommendations by subordinate authorities create an enforceable legitimate expectation for appointment

3. Whether the subsistence of financial hardship is a prerequisite that justifies judicial interference in the discretionary power of the Government

The Tribunal applied Rule 7 of SRO-43 of 1994, which grants the Government discretionary power to relax age or qualification limits in "deserving cases"

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents of General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain (2008) and Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das (2008), establishing that compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment rules, a concession rather than a vested right, and must be strictly governed by the scheme's terms

The principle from Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram (1992) was applied to consider subsequent events, such as the stabilization of the family's financial status, when determining the necessity of compassionate relief

The Tribunal reasoned that Rule 7 provides the Government with discretionary, not mandatory, power; thus, the applicant cannot demand relaxation as a matter of right

While subordinate officials made recommendations, these are merely suggestive and do not bind the competent authority (General Administration Department)

The Tribunal noted that the primary objective of compassionate appointment—providing immediate succour to a family in crisis—was mitigated by the substantial terminal benefits (₹29.52 lakhs) and a significant monthly pension (₹40,669) received by the family

Additionally, the lapse of eight years since the death of the employee weakened the claim for "immediate" relief

The court found that the decision-making process was not arbitrary or perverse, as the authorities had consciously considered the relaxation policy before declining the request

Administrative discretion under Rule 7 cannot be substituted by judicial discretion unless manifest arbitrariness is shown

The Transfer Application was dismissed, affirming the validity of the rejection communication dated July 4, 2019

No order as to costs was made