A non-speaking rejection of compassionate appointment requires fresh consideration with a reasoned merit assessment.

Late Mohan Lal Yadav, the applicant’s father, was employed as a C.P. Chowkidar at Karvi Head Post Office and died in harness on 5 May 2014.

The applicant claimed compassionate appointment, asserting that his father had rendered approximately 33 years of service, was the family’s sole earning member, and that the family was left in financial hardship after his death.

The applicant had earlier challenged the rejection of his claim in O.A. No. 349/2016. By order dated 7 March 2018, the Tribunal set aside the earlier rejection dated 23 November 2015 and directed the respondents to reconsider the claim in accordance with law.

Following reconsideration, the applicant’s claim was again rejected by order dated 17 March 2021. He therefore filed the present O.A. challenging that subsequent order and seeking reconsideration and appointment on a suitable post.

The respondents contended that the application was not maintainable because the applicant had not disclosed the earlier O.A., pending Contempt Petition No. 157/2018, and a writ petition pending before the Allahabad High Court concerning proceedings initiated by his mother.

They also argued that the deceased employee was only a temporary employee and that compassionate appointment was not claimable as of right.

Whether the present O.A. was barred by res judicata, suppression of material facts, or the pendency of the earlier contempt and writ proceedings?

Whether the order dated 17 March 2021, rejecting the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment, constituted proper and meaningful compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier direction for reconsideration?

Whether the respondents were required to assess the deceased employee’s service status and the applicant’s claim through a reasoned evaluation of the prescribed compassionate-appointment parameters?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle of res judicata, holding that the doctrine requires a final adjudication of the same issue between the same parties; a subsequent challenge to a fresh administrative order is not barred merely because an earlier proceeding concerned the underlying claim.

The Tribunal further applied the governing principles of compassionate appointment, namely that it is a relief-oriented exception to the normal recruitment process intended to address the financial hardship caused by the death of an employee in harness, and that eligibility must be assessed under the applicable rules, government instructions, and departmental guidelines.

It also applied the requirement of a reasoned and objective administrative decision, requiring consideration of relevant factors such as family income, dependants, liabilities, assets, terminal benefits, educational qualifications, and the deceased employee’s service status.

The Tribunal held that the earlier O.A. had not finally determined the applicant’s entitlement; it had set aside the previous rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Since the present O.A. challenged the distinct order dated 17 March 2021, the essential requirements of res judicata were absent.

The pending contempt petition concerned compliance with the earlier remand direction, whereas the present proceeding challenged the legality of the fresh rejection on its merits; the two proceedings therefore operated in different fields.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the impugned order did not demonstrate a detailed assessment under the applicable compassionate-appointment scheme.

It did not disclose a merit-point chart or explain the assessment of income, dependants, liabilities, assets, and other prescribed factors.

The respondents’ assertion that the deceased employee was temporary was also considered insufficient because the service record, temporary status, any subsequent regularisation, period of service, pay, and nature of appointment had not been properly examined.

The applicant’s willingness to accept appointment as a GDS at any place was a relevant circumstance that also required consideration.

It quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 17 March 2021 and allowed the O.A.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim at the next meeting of the Circle Relaxation Committee or Departmental Screening Committee, strictly under the applicable rules and departmental instructions.

They were further directed to prepare a detailed merit-point chart or evaluation sheet covering family income, terminal benefits, dependants, liabilities, assets, educational qualifications, the deceased employee’s remaining service, and all other relevant factors.

If the applicant fell within the zone of consideration based on the fresh assessment and availability of vacancies, his case was to be considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.