Administrative delay in processing compassionate appointment claims precludes the rejection of such claims on technical or limitation grounds.

The applicant’s father, a Warder in the Prisons Department, died in harness on July 17, 2000.

The widow applied for compassionate appointment within one year.

In 2005, the department asked if another family member could be considered, leading the mother to nominate her son (the applicant).

Although the applicant was a minor (15 years, 7 months) at the time, the Prisons Department repeatedly recommended his case to the Home Department for age relaxation between 2005 and 2009.

The applicant underwent a medical fitness exam and was found fit.

Despite years of active correspondence and recommendations, no formal order of appointment or rejection was issued, leading the applicant to file this O.A. in 2022.

1. Whether the applicant is disentitled from consideration under SRO-43 merely because he attained majority beyond the stipulated period prescribed under the scheme.

2. Whether the respondents, after continuously processing and recommending the case for years, can deny the claim on technical grounds.

3. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Jammu & Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 (SRO-43), which governs appointments for dependents of employees dying in harness.

The court relied on Sushma Gosain & Ors v. Union of India, establishing that compassionate claims must be decided without undue delay to mitigate financial hardship.

The court cited Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, holding that authorities cannot frustrate the object of the scheme by delaying a process for years and then rejecting it on technical grounds.

The court noted the principle from MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh that while not a matter of right, such claims require promptitude and expedition.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ conduct significantly altered the typical application of SRO-43. Although the applicant was a minor, the respondents did not reject the claim at the threshold; instead, they consciously invoked the mechanism of relaxation and kept the file active for over five years.

The court reasoned that the delay was entirely attributable to administrative inaction rather than the applicant’s lapse.

Regarding limitation, the Tribunal held that since the matter remained under "active administrative consideration" and no final rejection order was ever communicated, the cause of action survived, and a rigid application of the limitation bar was inappropriate.

The court determined that fairness and consistency prevent an authority from overlooking technical bars for years only to later invoke them to defeat a claim.

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks, specifically addressing the implications of their prolonged internal processing and the absence of a communicated rejection.

No order as to costs.