Mandatoy Reconsideration of Compassionate Appointment Application Despite Delay if Merit Criteria are Met

The applicant’s father, Late Sh. Satpal, died in harness on 23.01.2006 while serving as a Sorting Assistant in the Department of Posts

In 2011, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment, which was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) on 10.08.2012

Although the applicant secured 60 merit points and was ranked at Serial No. 28, the committee only offered 13 vacancies in the MTS cadre, leading to his non-selection

The applicant filed a fresh representation on 26.11.2024, which was rejected by the respondents on 11.12.2024 on the grounds that the initial rejection occurred in 2012 and that the long lapse of time (nearly 19 years since the death) negated the urgency of compassionate relief

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking directions for grant of employment, claiming he was never personally informed of the 2012 outcome

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to re-consideration for compassionate appointment despite the significant lapse of time since the death of the breadwinner

2. Whether the respondents' prior consideration of candidates lower in merit than the applicant warrants a direction for re-evaluating the applicant’s case

The court primarily assessed the Department of Posts' scheme for compassionate appointment and the "Relative Merit Points" system used by the Circle Relaxation Committee

compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a relief to tide over immediate financial destitution, and cannot be granted after an unreasonable delay [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994 (4) SCC 138)]

The court also considered the principle of administrative fairness and parity, noting that the Tribunal had previously directed reconsideration for other candidates in similar positions in O.A. No. 1038-HP-2011

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was indeed a high-ranking candidate on the merit list (Serial No. 28 with 60 points) but was bypassed due to vacancy constraints

the respondents had reconsidered candidates ranked below the applicant following separate litigation, yet the applicant had not benefited from such a review because he had not approached the Tribunal earlier

the Tribunal accepted the applicant's contention that he was not properly informed of the outcome in 2012

The Tribunal reasoned that since others with lower merit points were given consideration, the applicant deserved an opportunity for re-evaluation to ensure equity, regardless of the time elapsed

It held that the applicant deserves an opportunity for re-consideration and directed that the delay in filing the application shall not act as a hindrance

The Court ordered: (i) the applicant to submit his case within three weeks; (ii) the respondents to consider the application as per current Rules/Schemes within four weeks thereafter; and (iii) if found eligible and in accordance with proceedings for similar appointments, an offer of compassionate appointment be made within eight weeks thereafter