Authorities cannot keep compassionate appointment applications on hold pending clarity on GOCO implementation.

Late Pradip Kumar Thapa, an Ex-Fitter employed at 507 Army Base Workshop, died in harness on 18 January 2020, leaving behind his widow, Smt. Radha Thapa, and son, Palas Thapa.

The widow submitted a representation dated 10 January 2023 seeking compassionate appointment for her son.

By Office Order dated 13 January 2023, the respondents stated that appointments and recruitments were being kept pending until greater clarity emerged regarding implementation of the Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) model; they also referred to the 5% ceiling applicable to compassionate appointments.

As the request remained undecided, the applicants approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of the Office Order and a direction for compassionate appointment.

Whether the respondents could keep all applications for compassionate appointment in abeyance pending clarification regarding implementation of the GOCO model.

Whether the competent authority was required to consider and decide the widow’s representation seeking compassionate appointment for her son in accordance with the applicable Government guidelines.

Whether the applicants were entitled to an immediate direction granting compassionate appointment to Applicant No. 1.

The Tribunal applied the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 14014/6/94-Estt.(D) dated 9 October 1988 governing compassionate appointment.

The scheme is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of a Government servant who dies in harness and leaves the family in financial distress.

Compassionate appointment may be made only against regular vacancies and is subject to a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling within the direct-recruitment quota in Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ posts.

The guidelines also contemplate consideration of eligible applicants against available vacancies and, where necessary, coordination with other Government offices to accommodate persons on the waiting list.

The Tribunal did not hold that compassionate appointment follows automatically upon the employee’s death; the claim remained subject to eligibility, availability of vacancies, and the governing policy.

The Tribunal held that the respondents’ general decision to keep all compassionate-appointment applications pending solely because of uncertainty concerning the GOCO implementation was inconsistent with the governing DoPT scheme.

Although the scheme restricts appointments to eligible candidates and caps them at 5% of direct-recruitment vacancies, that limitation does not authorise the competent authority to indefinitely suspend consideration of every pending application.

Since the applicants’ representation dated 10 January 2023 had not been decided on its merits, the respondents were required to examine it under the applicable guidelines and determine whether Applicant No. 1 satisfied the relevant conditions.

The Tribunal therefore quashed the blanket suspension order but stopped short of directing appointment as a matter of right.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide, by a reasoned and speaking order, the representation dated 10 January 2023 seeking compassionate appointment for Palas Thapa, and to communicate the decision to the applicants within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The application was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs; no immediate appointment was granted.