Authorities cannot rely on a quashed order; compassionate appointment claims must be reconsidered afresh.

The applicant’s husband, a Lower Division Clerk employed at Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur, died in an accident on 17 November 2010 after approximately seven years of service.

The applicant was granted family pension and terminal benefits and applied for compassionate appointment on 29 July 2013.

Her claim was considered on several occasions but was not recommended because of limited vacancies under the 5% quota and her comparatively lower merit points.

The respondents initially closed her case by order dated 22 April 2016 after three considerations.

That order was quashed by the Tribunal in OA No. 846 of 2016 on 11 July 2016, with a direction to reconsider her claim on merit along with other candidates in light of the Government of India/Ministry of Defence Office Memorandum dated 30 April 2015.

Despite that order, the respondents issued a communication dated 30 December 2016 referring to and relying upon the quashed order dated 22 April 2016.

Whether the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment could be rejected or closed by relying upon the order dated 22 April 2016 after that order had already been quashed by the Tribunal in OA No. 846 of 2016?

Whether the communication dated 30 December 2016 complied with the earlier direction to reconsider the applicant’s case afresh, on merit, in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 30 April 2015?

Whether the applicant was entitled to compassionate appointment as a matter of right merely because she was the widow of the deceased employee?

Compassionate appointment is an exceptional measure intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee facing financial distress; it is not an automatic or vested right.

Selection must be made in accordance with the applicable policy, within the prescribed quota, and on the basis of comparative merit among eligible candidates.

The Tribunal applied the Government of India/Ministry of Defence Office Memorandum dated 30 April 2015, which required the applicant’s case to be considered on merit and did not justify closure merely on the basis that it had been considered three times.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that an order already quashed by a competent court ceases to have legal effect and cannot subsequently be relied upon as a subsisting basis for decision-making.

The Tribunal noted that the order dated 22 April 2016 had already been expressly quashed in OA No. 846 of 2016, which directed reconsideration of the applicant’s claim along with other candidates in light of the Office Memorandum dated 30 April 2015.

Nevertheless, the communication dated 30 December 2016 relied upon and reiterated the reasoning contained in the quashed order.

The respondents could not treat the invalidated order as continuing to operate or use it as the basis for rejecting the applicant’s claim.

Although compassionate appointment was not claimable as of right and the applicant’s comparative merit and available vacancies could legitimately be considered, the reconsideration had to be genuine, independent, and compliant with the earlier judicial direction.

The impugned communication therefore suffered from patent illegality.

The communication/order dated 30 December 2016 was quashed and set aside to the extent that it relied upon or reiterated the earlier quashed order.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim afresh in the next CRC meeting, independently and strictly in accordance with the applicable policy, guidelines, and the Tribunal’s order dated 11 July 2016, without relying upon the order dated 22 April 2016.

A fresh, reasoned, and speaking order was directed to be passed.

No order was made as to costs, and all miscellaneous applications were disposed of.