Authority directed to decide representation for compassionate appointment by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The husband of the applicant, Late Rampal Nath, died in harness on June 9, 2017, while serving with Northern Railway

He was survived by the applicant and an adopted son, Deepak Kumar, adopted via a deed dated December 15, 1998, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Following a directive from Railway authorities, the applicant obtained a judgment and decree from the Civil Judge (J.D.), Rampur, dated January 1, 2019, declaring the adoption legally valid

Despite submitting this decree and multiple representations (dated May 27, 2022, and May 8, 2023) seeking terminal dues and compassionate appointment for her son, the respondents failed to take a decision

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for the respondents to decide on the pending representations

1. Whether the respondent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant's representation for compassionate appointment in a time-bound manner

2. Whether the claim for compassionate appointment is barred by limitation due to the lapse of time since the employee's death in 2017

The court considered the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, regarding the legal status of adopted children

precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, which holds that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a means to provide immediate financial relief to a family in crisis, and may lose relevance after a long lapse of time

The applicant sought a limited prayer for the disposal of her representation through a reasoned and speaking order

the respondents contended that the application was barred by limitation, arguing that the passage of six years since the death of the breadwinner defeated the primary purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to mitigate sudden financial exigency

The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of the limitation argument at this stage, determined that the interests of justice would be served by ensuring the administrative authority exercises its discretion to pass a formal decision on the applicant's request

The competent authority among the respondents was further directed to decide said representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the fresh representation and the Tribunal's order