Authorities must decide the compassionate-appointment claim by a reasoned speaking order within eight weeks.

The applicant’s father, Bashir Ahmad Akhoon, was employed as a Junior Foreman (Horticulture) with the Archaeological Survey of India and died in service on 21 April 2008, leaving behind his wife, one daughter, and three sons.

The applicant’s mother sought compassionate appointment for him, preferably as a Garden Assistant, after he attained the requisite educational qualification.

The respondents processed the claim and obtained a Family Welfare Report, which recorded that the family lived in financially distressed conditions and that appointment of a family member could alleviate the hardship.

Despite repeated representations and RTI proceedings, the applicant was allegedly informed orally that his claim had been rejected.

During the pendency of his earlier writ petition, the respondents formally rejected his claim by communication dated 17 April 2018, stating that he did not possess the educational qualification prescribed under the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 2013.

The applicant challenged that communication in the present transferred application.

During arguments, however, he limited his prayer to a direction that the application and accompanying documents be treated as a comprehensive representation and decided in accordance with law.

The respondents stated that they had no objection to such disposal, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

Whether the applicant’s challenge to the rejection of compassionate appointment could be disposed of by directing the respondents to reconsider the matter as a comprehensive representation in accordance with law?

Whether the respondents should be directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant’s claim, subject to his eligibility, entitlement, and the absence of any legal impediment?

The Tribunal applied the governing statutory provisions, rules, and legal framework regulating compassionate appointment, including the requirement that appointment can be granted only where the applicant satisfies the prescribed eligibility and entitlement conditions.

It also applied the administrative-law requirement that a decision affecting a claimant’s rights must be supported by a reasoned and speaking order.

Compassionate appointment remained subject to the applicable rules and could not be ordered as a matter of automatic entitlement.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had initially challenged the rejection order on merits, particularly the respondents’ reliance on the prescribed educational qualification.

However, after substantial argument, the applicant expressly confined his relief to reconsideration of his claim.

Since the respondents had no objection to that limited prayer, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate the merits of the rejection or express any view on the applicant’s entitlement.

Instead, it directed the respondents to consider the transferred application, its annexures, and any earlier representations as a comprehensive representation.

The respondents were required to examine the claim under the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and legal framework and to issue a reasoned and speaking order, while keeping the applicant’s eligibility, entitlement, and any legal impediment in view.

The respondents were directed to treat the application, annexures, and prior representations as a comprehensive representation and decide the matter by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks from the date on which a certified copy of the order and a copy of the transferred application were served upon the respondents.