An administrative ministry cannot reject compassionate appointment solely on an internal ban contrary to extant DoPT policy.

The applicant’s husband, Sukumar Mahato, was a permanent Garden Attendant at A.J.C. Bose Indian Botanic Garden, Botanical Survey of India, and died in harness on 1 February 2014.

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 13 June 2014, stating that the family was facing financial hardship.

A departmental physical verification conducted in June 2018 confirmed the family’s indigent financial condition.

Her claim was initially rejected on 11 October 2021 on the ground of limitation.

In O.A. No. 959/2022, the Tribunal set aside that rejection on 21 June 2023 and directed reconsideration in light of the applicable policy and the verification report.

On reconsideration, the respondents again rejected the claim by speaking order dated 6 October 2023, stating that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had imposed a ban on compassionate appointments in the Botanical Survey of India and had not agreed to lift it.

Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment solely on the basis of an alleged departmental or ministerial ban, when the Government of India’s compassionate appointment scheme remained operative.

Whether the respondents could rely on delays attributable to departmental processing to deny consideration of an application made in 2014, despite the applicant’s indigent condition having been verified by the department.

Whether the impugned speaking order dated 6 October 2023 was sustainable and whether the applicant’s case required reconsideration by the Committee for Compassionate Appointment.

The Tribunal applied the Government of India’s Scheme for Compassionate Appointment embodied in the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 9 October 1998, as amended, including the amendment dated 16 January 2013.

The scheme is a welfare measure intended to provide relief from the immediate financial hardship caused by the death of a government employee in harness.

Since the scheme had not been withdrawn by the Department of Personnel and Training, the Ministry of Environment and Forests could not rely on an alleged ban to defeat consideration of a valid claim under the operative scheme.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that an authority cannot take advantage of its own delay or default to deny a legitimate claim.

The respondents did not dispute either the applicant’s indigent financial condition or the departmental verification report dated 4 June 2018; their sole ground was the alleged ban on compassionate appointments.

The Tribunal held that this ground was legally insufficient because the compassionate appointment scheme continued to operate and had not been withdrawn by the competent central authority.

Further, the applicant had submitted her application in 2014, while the subsequent delay was attributable to the respondents’ processing of the claim.

Having verified the family’s indigence, the respondents could not rely on the passage of time resulting from their own delay to reject the claim.

The impugned order therefore failed to apply the governing scheme and did not properly assess the applicant’s claim on comparative merit, indigence, and availability of vacancies.

It directed the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Director, Botanical Survey of India, to reconsider the applicant’s case in accordance with the extant DoPT guidelines.

The applicant’s case was to be placed before the next Committee for Compassionate Appointment, which was required to assess her comparative merit, indigent condition, and available vacancies.

A fresh, reasoned speaking order was to be passed and communicated within 12 weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was accordingly allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.