Authorities must decide compassionate appointment claims under SRO-43 by a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The applicant’s father, Mohammad Altaf Pandit, was serving as a Line Man Grade-II in the Power Development Department when he died in harness on 29 August 2024.

The applicant claimed to be his dependent son and submitted an application dated 6 September 2024 for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994, along with supporting documents.

A Legal Heir Certificate dated 4 October 2024 recorded the applicant among the deceased employee’s surviving legal heirs.

The applicant alleged that the respondents had neither processed his claim nor communicated any decision.

During hearing, the applicant requested disposal of the matter with appropriate directions, and the respondents raised no objection, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994 should be considered and decided by the competent authority on the basis of his application and supporting documents.

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment against an appropriate available post without itself determining his eligibility or entitlement.

The Tribunal applied SRO-43 of 1994, which governs compassionate appointment to eligible dependent family members of Government employees who die in harness, subject to fulfilment of the applicable conditions.

It also applied the principle that a claim for compassionate appointment must be examined by the competent authority in accordance with the governing scheme, relevant facts, supporting documents and applicable law, rather than being left undecided indefinitely.

The Tribunal directed consideration of the applicant’s reliance on Mst. Shabeena Khan v. Director, SKIMS (2022), to the extent applicable, particularly regarding the interpretation of “family member,” marital status and verification of dependency.

It further followed the principle that, where the merits have not been adjudicated, the appropriate relief is a direction for a reasoned and speaking decision rather than a direct order of appointment.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had asserted timely submission of his compassionate appointment application, produced the death certificate and Legal Heir Certificate, and alleged continued administrative inaction.

Since the respondents did not oppose disposal with appropriate directions, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to keep the application pending.

However, it expressly declined to determine whether the applicant was actually eligible or entitled to appointment.

Instead, it required the competent authority to examine the application dated 6 September 2024, the deceased employee’s death certificate, the Legal Heir Certificate dated 4 October 2024, the applicant’s claim of dependency, the applicable provisions of SRO-43 of 1994, and the judgment relied upon by him.

The competent authority was directed to pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from service of a certified copy of the order and communicate the decision to the applicant thereafter.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits, eligibility or entitlement of the applicant, leaving all questions of fact and law open for determination by the competent authority.

No order was made as to costs.