Authorities must consider compassionate appointment claims under applicable schemes and pass a reasoned order.

The applicant’s father, a Jammu and Kashmir Police constable, died on 25 September 2002 after sustaining injuries in a terrorist attack while on duty. The applicant was a minor at the time.

In 2014, his mother asked the department to reserve the benefit of compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 for him.

The department rejected the claim on 9 September 2022, reasoning that it was not covered by SRO 43 of 1994, read with SRO 255 of 2016; the respondents stated that no eligible next of kin had applied within one year of the death and that the proposed beneficiary was not born at the time.

Before the Tribunal, the applicant produced later verification and committee documents, including a DLSCC report recording his case as “clear”.

During the hearing, both parties agreed that the O.A. could be treated as a representation for consideration by the competent authority.

Whether the O.A. should be disposed of by treating it as a representation seeking consideration of the applicant’s compassionate-appointment claim.

Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicant’s eligibility under the applicable schemes, or leave that question to the competent authority while directing a reasoned decision.

The Tribunal identified SRO 43 of 1994, SRO 255 of 2016, and S.O. 429 of 2022—the Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, 2022—as provisions for the competent authority to consider, together with any other applicable rules, regulations, policy, and law.

Consideration remained subject to the applicant’s entitlement and eligibility and to any legal or factual impediment.

The Tribunal cited no judicial precedent and did not determine the substantive scope or effect of these schemes.

Given the parties’ agreement that the O.A. could be treated as a representation, the Tribunal found no useful purpose in keeping the proceeding pending.

It therefore directed the respondents to consider the claim in light of the identified communications, DLSCC minutes and report, and documents submitted by the applicant.

Because eligibility and other factual and legal questions remained open, the Tribunal left them to the competent authority rather than ruling on the merits.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation, consider the claim under the applicable schemes and law, and pass a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the order.

All questions of fact and law were left open; the parties were directed to bear their own costs.