Age below 53 on the application date cannot bar consideration for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following his father’s medical invalidation from service as a Secondary Grade Teacher, effective 26 December 2013. He submitted his application on 15 December 2014, but the respondents had not considered it.

The State contended that under G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23 January 2020, eligibility was limited to employees medically invalidated before age 53, and that the petitioner had not furnished required documents. The Court recorded the father’s date of birth as 9 January 1961 and stated that, on the application date, he was 52 years, 11 months and 6 days old.

1. Whether the petitioner’s father’s age rendered the petitioner ineligible to seek compassionate appointment.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s pending representation, subject to submission of the required documents.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to direct public authorities to consider a pending representation in accordance with law.

The respondents relied on G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23 January 2020, as prescribing an age criterion for compassionate appointment following medical invalidation; the Court did not set out or independently interpret the Government Order’s terms, but directed consideration under the applicable rules.

The Court held that the age criterion should not prevent consideration of the application, relying on its recorded conclusion that the father was 52 years, 11 months and 6 days old on the date the application was submitted.

It did not grant appointment or determine the petitioner’s ultimate eligibility; instead, it left the merits to the respondents, subject to receipt of the documents sought.

If he did so, the respondents were to consider his representation dated 15 December 2014 and pass appropriate orders on its merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks thereafter. The Court directed that the age criterion should not impede consideration of the application.