Prolonged consideration does not create a vested right to compassionate appointment.

The applicant’s father died on 28 October 2004. On 29 November 2004, the applicant’s mother sought compassionate appointment for the applicant’s elder brother, Mahendra Kumar; his candidature was considered on three occasions but was not recommended.

The applicant subsequently applied for compassionate appointment on 21 June 2017.

His case was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) against the vacancy years 2005–2007 and thereafter by the Review CAC against the vacancy years 2008 and 2009, but he was not recommended as he did not obtain sufficient merit.

The applicant therefore approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds.

1. Whether the applicant could claim compassionate appointment after a prolonged period from the death of his father, merely because his case had been considered against successive vacancy years.

2. Whether the respondents’ repeated consideration of the applicant’s claim, despite his non-recommendation on merit, justified granting him compassionate appointment.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee facing hardship upon the death of the breadwinner; it is not a vested right or a source of employment claimable after an unreasonable lapse of time.

The Tribunal relied principally on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Others, JT 1994 (3) SC 525, wherein the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after the lapse of a reasonable period and cannot be claimed as a vested right at any time in the future.

The respondents also assessed the applicant’s case under the applicable guidelines dated 4 June 2015 and the prescribed merit-based consideration by the CAC.

The Tribunal held that although the family’s initial request was made soon after the employee’s death, the applicant’s own application was filed nearly thirteen years later, and his case continued to be considered until 1 March 2019—approximately fourteen years and four months after the death.

Applying the rule in Umesh Kumar Nagpal, the Tribunal found that such prolonged consideration defeated the purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to address immediate financial distress rather than provide employment after the crisis has substantially receded.

Further, the applicant had not been found meritorious against any of the vacancy years considered, and the mere fact that the respondents repeatedly considered his case did not create an enforceable or vested right to appointment.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs; any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.