Authorities must decide compassionate appointment applications by reasoned orders within prescribed timelines.

The applicant’s father, Gurmail Singh, an employee of the Military Engineering Services since 4 November 1987, died in harness on 19 April 2021, leaving behind his wife, two sons and the applicant as dependants.

Applications dated 14 July 2022 and 28 April 2023 were submitted seeking the applicant’s compassionate appointment to posts such as LDC, Peon, Chowkidar, or equivalent posts.

The applicant asserted that all requisite documents, affidavits and declarations had been furnished, and that the competent office had recommended her case, but the application remained undecided.

During the proceedings, the applicant confined her relief to a direction for time-bound disposal of her application dated 28 April 2023. The respondents raised no objection to such disposal.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending application dated 28 April 2023 for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and policy.

Whether such decision should be made within a specified time by a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It directed consideration of the compassionate-appointment application in accordance with the applicable policy, including the DoPT policy dated 2 August 2022.

The Tribunal also relied on Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa & Others, Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022, decided on 20 May 2022, wherein the Supreme Court held that completed applications for compassionate appointment must be considered under the policy prevailing at the relevant time and decided expeditiously, preferably at the earliest and not beyond six months from submission of the completed application.

Since the applicant sought only a direction for consideration of her pending application and the respondents consented to that course, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the claim for compassionate appointment.

The existence of a pending application, the assertion that requisite documents had been supplied, and the absence of a decision by the competent authority justified a procedural direction for its disposal.

Applying the principles governing expeditious consideration of compassionate-appointment claims, the Tribunal required Respondent No. 3 to examine the application under the applicable rules and policy and to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to decide the applicant’s application dated 28 April 2023 for compassionate appointment, in accordance with the applicable rules and the governing policy, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The pending MA was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.