Authorities Must Reconsider Compassionate Appointment Claim Under SRO-43 Through a Reasoned Order

The applicant’s brother was killed in cross-firing on 15 July 2000; the death certificate recorded the date as 16 July 2000 and the cause as “by cross firing.”

The respondents sanctioned and released ₹1 lakh as ex-gratia relief to the deceased’s family.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994. A GAD communication dated 21 June 2013 stated that his case was not covered by the SRO, without giving reasons, according to the applicant.

In the proceedings, the applicant limited his request to having the T.A. treated as a representation and having his claim reconsidered; the respondents did not oppose disposal on appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

1. Whether the T.A. should be treated as the applicant’s representation and his claim for compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994 reconsidered by the competent authority.

2. Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicant’s entitlement to appointment, or leave the merits to the competent authority.

The claim was made under SRO-43 of 1994, and the Tribunal directed that it be considered in accordance with the applicable law, rules and regulations.

The order cites no statutory provision or precedent as the basis for deciding entitlement; it expressly leaves all questions on the merits to the competent authority.

In view of the applicant’s limited prayer and the respondents’ position, the Tribunal considered that keeping the T.A. pending would serve no useful purpose.

It therefore directed consideration of the averments and supporting documents in the T.A., rather than deciding whether the applicant qualified under SRO-43.

The competent authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order, subject to the applicant’s entitlement and any legal impediment, and associate the applicant in the exercise.

It directed the respondents to treat the T.A. as the applicant’s representation and reconsider his claim under SRO-43 of 1994 in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.

The applicant is to be associated in the process, and all merits questions remain open to the competent authority.

No order as to costs.