CAT - ['Jammu']
Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

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

Yogadi Singh vs POWER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CAT - ['Jammu']JUDGMENT: October 14, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Authorities must decide SRO-43 compassionate appointment claims by reasoned order within eight weeks.. Yogadi Singh vs POWER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. CAT - ['Jammu']. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant sought compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994.

Source reference: p.2–3

He contended that, despite an earlier order of the J&K High Court dated 24 April 2015, his claim had not been finalized.

Source reference: p.2–3

In June 2026, his documents were re-verified and his case was forwarded with a positive recommendation as genuine for compassionate appointment.

Source reference: p.2–3

No appointment order had been issued by the time he filed this application.

Source reference: p.2–3

At the hearing, the applicant limited his request to a direction that the application be treated as a representation and decided by a reasoned order within a time frame.

Source reference: p.3
02

Issues

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994 in light of the recommendation dated 23 June 2026.

Source reference: p.2–3

2. Whether the Original Application could be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order within a specified period.

Source reference: p.3
03

Law Applied

The Tribunal referred to SRO-43 of 1994 as the governing scheme for the applicant’s claim to compassionate appointment.

Source reference: p.2–3

It did not interpret the scheme, rely on any cited precedent, or determine any substantive rule governing eligibility.

Source reference: p.3

Instead, it disposed of the matter on the basis of the applicant’s limited prayer, directing administrative consideration and a reasoned decision.

Source reference: p.3
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s case had been re-verified and positively recommended, but that no formal appointment order had followed.

Source reference: p.2–3

Because the applicant accepted consideration of his claim by a reasoned decision as sufficient relief at that stage, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to keep the application pending or decide the merits of his entitlement to appointment.

Source reference: p.3

It therefore directed the respondents to consider the claim in light of the recommendation, without expressing any view on whether the applicant was entitled to appointment.

Source reference: p.3
05

Holding

The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application at the admission stage, without entering into the merits.

It directed the respondents to treat a copy of the application as the applicant’s representation, consider his claim under SRO-43 of 1994 in light of the recommendation dated 23 June 2026, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Source reference: p.3–4

The speaking order was also to be communicated to the applicant.

Source reference: p.3–4

No order as to costs was made.

Source reference: p.3–4
CAT - ['Jammu']

Original Court PDF

Yogadi SinghvsPOWER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CAT - ['Jammu'] · October 14, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment