Authorities must decide compassionate appointment claims under SRO 43 by a reasoned, speaking order.

The applicant, Rayees Ahmad Sheikh, claimed compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 as the son and dependent of Sarwa Akhter, a Class-IV employee in the Health Services, Kashmir, who died in harness on 4 June 2018.

He alleged that despite submitting an application and repeated representations, his claim was not considered.

The applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1195/2022. By order dated 21 December 2022, the respondents were directed to consider his claim and decide his representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents subsequently declined to forward the claim on the ground that the deceased employee had figured in a list of 133 alleged fake or illegal appointees and had been disengaged from service.

The applicant contended that the basis for rejection had ceased to exist following subsequent judicial and administrative developments whereby the concerned employees were taken back into service and their wages were directed to be released.

Since no reasoned decision had been passed on his claim, he filed the present O.A. During arguments, he confined his relief to consideration and disposal of his claim for compassionate appointment.

Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s earlier direction dated 21 December 2022 to consider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment and pass a reasoned and speaking order?

Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 and decide it within a stipulated period?

The Tribunal applied the provisions governing compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994, requiring the applicant’s entitlement and eligibility to be examined in accordance with the applicable rules and law.

It also applied the administrative-law requirement that a claim must be considered by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where an earlier judicial direction had mandated such consideration.

The Tribunal further proceeded on the principle that, where the applicant seeks only consideration of his claim, the matter may be remitted to the competent authority without the Tribunal expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal found that the record did not disclose the passing of any reasoned and speaking order in compliance with its order dated 21 December 2022; consequently, the applicant’s grievance remained unresolved.

Although the respondents argued that the present O.A. substantially duplicated the earlier proceedings, they expressed no objection to appropriate directions being issued.

In view of the limited relief sought and to prevent further litigation, the Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the present O.A. and its annexures as a representation.

The competent authority was required to examine the applicant’s claim strictly under SRO 43 of 1994, applicable rules and governing law, while considering his eligibility, entitlement and any legal or factual impediment.

The applicant was also required to be associated with the process and given an opportunity to submit supporting documents.

The respondents were directed to treat the O.A. and accompanying documents as a representation, consider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 and applicable law, associate the applicant in the process, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from service of the Tribunal’s order.

All questions of fact and law were left open for determination by the competent authority.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs.