TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether compassionate appointment could be granted in the absence of indigence or financial destitution in the family of the deceased employee; (ii) whether the claim could survive when the applicant was already beyond the age of superannuation.
Issue (i): whether compassionate appointment could be granted in the absence of indigence or financial destitution in the family of the deceased employee.
Analysis: Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but an exception to the normal rule of appointment on merit through open competition. Its object is to relieve the family of a deceased employee from sudden financial crisis and destitution. The controlling scheme required that the family be indigent and in need of immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. A family receiving terminal benefits and pension, and not shown to be in indigent circumstances, does not satisfy the basic pre-condition for such appointment.
Conclusion: The claim was not maintainable on merits and was rightly rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the claim could survive when the applicant was already beyond the age of superannuation.
Analysis: The record indicated that the applicant had already crossed the age of retirement when the claim was considered. An appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be made to a person who is no longer within the permissible age for appointment, and the claim could not be sustained on that basis as well.
Conclusion: The claim was barred on age and could not be granted.
Final Conclusion: The order directing consideration for compassionate appointment was unsustainable and was set aside, leaving no entitlement to the claimed employment.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment can be granted only when the claimant satisfies the scheme's threshold requirement of indigence and immediate financial need, and the claimant must also be otherwise eligible for appointment, including being within the permissible age limit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
