Married daughters are eligible for compassionate appointment, but relief is barred by significant delay.

The applicant’s father, a Postal Assistant, died in harness on 30.04.2002

Initially, the applicant's mother was approved for compassionate appointment in 2003, but the process was stalled after the applicant's grandfather reported that the mother had remarried

The applicant reached the age of majority and married in 2018. She applied for compassionate appointment on 19.04.2022

The respondents rejected her claim on 15.01.2024 via the impugned order, stating that under the Gramin Dak Sevak (Compassionate Appointment) Scheme 2023, a married daughter is ineligible

1. Whether a married daughter is legally entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment

2. Whether compassionate appointment can be claimed as a matter of right after a significant lapse of time from the death of the employee

The Tribunal applied the precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Meenakshi Dubey vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., which established that married daughters are entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment

The primary governing principle was derived from Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, which held that the object of compassionate appointment is to help the family tide over a "sudden crisis" and is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in the future

The Tribunal harmonized the two legal principles. While it agreed with the applicant that her status as a "married daughter" should not inherently disqualify her based on Meenakshi Dubey, it scrutinized the "immediacy" of the financial crisis.

The court observed that the employee died in 2002, and the applicant applied in 2022—20 years later. Following the Umesh Kumar Nagpal doctrine, the Tribunal reasoned that since 24 years had elapsed since the death, the "sudden crisis" had long passed.

The delay indicated that the family had managed to survive without the appointment, thus negating the fundamental purpose of the compassionate scheme

It held that although the applicant’s marriage was not a bar, the lapse of nearly 24 years since the death of the breadwinner precluded the grant of relief. Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed