Authorities Must Decide Compassionate Appointment Representations by a Reasoned, Speaking Order.

The applicant’s father, who worked as a Multi-Tasking Staff member in the National AIDS Control Organisation, died in harness on 19 June 2023.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment, stating that his father had been the family’s sole breadwinner.

He submitted representations dated 3 June 2024 and 10 September 2024, followed by a reminder dated 14 October 2024.

A Pension Payment Order dated 24 June 2024 had been issued in favour of the applicant’s mother.

The respondents did not file a counter reply despite opportunities.

At the hearing, the applicant stated that he would be satisfied with a direction requiring the respondents to decide his representations by a reasoned and speaking order.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant’s pending representations concerning compassionate appointment by a reasoned and speaking order.

2. Whether the Tribunal should express an opinion on the merits of the compassionate-appointment claim or the limitation aspect of the O.A.

The Tribunal cited no statute, precedent, or substantive rule governing compassionate appointment.

It applied the procedural principle that a public authority may be directed to consider pending representations and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly reserved the merits of the claim and the limitation issue.

The applicant confined the relief sought at the hearing to a direction for a decision on his representations, and the respondents sought further time to file a counter reply.

In those circumstances, the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide the representations within a fixed period, without assessing whether the applicant qualified for compassionate appointment or whether the O.A. was within limitation.

It expressed no opinion on the merits or limitation, disposed of the O.A. without costs, and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.