Facts
The applicant sought compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994.
Source reference: p.2–3He 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.2–3In June 2026, his documents were re-verified and his case was forwarded with a positive recommendation as genuine for compassionate appointment.
Source reference: p.2–3No appointment order had been issued by the time he filed this application.
Source reference: p.2–3At 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.3Issues
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.2–32. 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.3Law Applied
The Tribunal referred to SRO-43 of 1994 as the governing scheme for the applicant’s claim to compassionate appointment.
Source reference: p.2–3It did not interpret the scheme, rely on any cited precedent, or determine any substantive rule governing eligibility.
Source reference: p.3Instead, it disposed of the matter on the basis of the applicant’s limited prayer, directing administrative consideration and a reasoned decision.
Source reference: p.3Reasoning
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.2–3Because 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.3It 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.3Holding
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.3–4The speaking order was also to be communicated to the applicant.
Source reference: p.3–4No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p.3–4Original Court PDF
Yogadi SinghvsPOWER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Authorities must decide SRO-43 compassionate appointment claims by reasoned order within eight weeks.. Yogadi Singh vs POWER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. CAT - ['Jammu']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/authorities-must-decide-sro-43-compassionate-appointment-claims-by-reasoned-order-within-e-b62fe5823ca7418ca7505d63337a27f3.webp)