Authorities must consider compassionate appointment claims under SRO-43 by a reasoned order, subject to eligibility.

The petitioner, Saiem Iqbal, a minor, approached the Tribunal through his paternal uncle seeking consideration for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994, following the death-in-harness of his father, Mohammad Iqbal Bhat, an Orderly-cum-Chowkidar in the Handicrafts Department, on 2 June 2019.

The petitioner’s mother had predeceased his father on 7 January 2017, while the petitioner’s elder sibling, Saliyha Iqbal, was stated to have 90% permanent disability.

The petitioner claimed to be the only eligible family member capable of seeking compassionate appointment, although he was a minor.

The respondents’ reply disclosed that the General Administration Department had opined that the case was neither covered by the relaxation policy/SRO-43 of 1994 nor by SRO-120 of 2018.

During hearing, the petitioner requested that the T.A. be treated as a representation, and the respondents expressed no objection.

Whether the pending T.A. could be treated as a representation seeking consideration of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s claim, along with the annexed documents, in accordance with SRO-43 of 1994, applicable rules, and the petitioner’s eligibility.

The Tribunal applied the framework governing compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994, subject to the applicant satisfying the prescribed entitlement, eligibility requirements, and other applicable conditions, rules, and regulations.

It also referred to the respondents’ position that the claim had been found not to fall within the relaxation policy/SRO-43 of 1994 or SRO-120 of 2018.

The Tribunal adopted the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority deciding such a claim must consider the relevant pleadings and documents and issue a comprehensive, reasoned, and speaking order.

Since both parties agreed that the matter could be disposed of as a representation, the Tribunal did not adjudicate whether the minor petitioner was substantively entitled to compassionate appointment.

Instead, it directed the competent respondents to examine the assertions made in the T.A., the documents annexed to it, and the applicable provisions of SRO-43 of 1994, while keeping the petitioner’s eligibility and all other statutory or regulatory conditions open for determination.

The direction was therefore limited to reconsideration through a lawful and reasoned administrative decision, notwithstanding the respondents’ earlier communication that the case was not covered under SRO-43 of 1994 or SRO-120 of 2018.

The respondents were directed to accord due consideration to the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, the averments in the T.A., and the annexed documents, in light of SRO-43 of 1994 and the applicable law, subject to the petitioner’s entitlement and eligibility.

The exercise was required to be completed within eight weeks from receipt of the Tribunal’s order by passing a comprehensive, detailed, reasoned, and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and that all questions of fact and law remained open before the competent authority.

The T.A. and connected miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of without costs.