Authorities must reconsider the compassionate appointment claim under the applicable scheme, without guaranteeing appointment.

The applicant’s father, a Sorting Postman, died in harness on 12 October 1997.

The applicant’s mother sought compassionate appointment for him in 1998, and the applicant submitted his own application in 2001.

The respondents considered the claim in Board meetings held on 5 and 6 January 2012 but informed him that it could not be recommended because of limited vacancies

The applicant challenged that decision, contending, among other things, that his financial circumstances and comparative merit had not been properly assessed.

During the proceedings, he sought reconsideration in light of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 2 August 2022.

Whether the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment should be reconsidered by the competent authority under the applicable scheme and instructions, including the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 2 August 2022, to the extent applicable

Whether the Tribunal should direct the applicant’s appointment, rather than direct reconsideration of his claim

Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee facing hardship and is not a matter of right.

The Tribunal directed that the claim be considered under the applicable scheme and instructions governing compassionate appointment, including the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 2 August 2022, insofar as applicable.

The order does not identify or apply any specific statute or judicial precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the application had remained pending since 2014 and considered reconsideration by the competent authority appropriate in the circumstances.

It directed the applicant’s case to be placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee at its next meeting and required a reasoned decision under the applicable scheme and instructions.

It did not determine that the applicant was entitled to appointment or resolve his contentions about the assessment of his financial circumstances or comparative merit.

The Tribunal clarified that the direction did not require the applicant’s appointment on compassionate grounds.

No order was made as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.