Authority must decide a recommended compassionate-appointment claim expeditiously, preferably within 30 days.

The petitioner’s mother, Smt. Vimla Bai, was employed as a Cleaner under Nagar Palika Parishad, Manendragarh, and died in harness on 23 August 2024.

The petitioner submitted an application dated 5 September 2024 seeking compassionate appointment, along with the requisite educational, dependency, and other documents. No decision was taken on the application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

During the proceedings, respondent No. 5 stated that the Municipal Council had found the petitioner eligible and fit for compassionate appointment and had forwarded its recommendation to the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development.

Since no suitable vacant post was available at Manendragarh, the recommendation was subsequently forwarded to the Director, Urban Administration and Development, where it remained pending.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending claim for compassionate appointment

Whether the Director, Urban Administration and Development, should take appropriate steps on the recommendation forwarded by the Municipal Council and the Joint Director

The Court applied the principle that a pending claim for compassionate appointment must be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable law, rules, and administrative policy governing compassionate appointment.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s substantive entitlement or cite any specific statutory provision or precedent; instead, it exercised its writ jurisdiction to require timely consideration of the pending administrative recommendation.

The petitioner’s claim was no longer merely at the application stage: the Municipal Council had assessed him as eligible and fit and had forwarded its recommendation through the competent administrative channel.

The only stated impediment was the non-availability of a suitable vacant post at Manendragarh, following which the recommendation was placed before the Director for consideration.

Since the claim remained undecided, the Court found it appropriate to issue a limited mandamus requiring the Director to consider the recommendation and take appropriate action in accordance with law, without itself directing appointment or determining the petitioner’s final eligibility.

The Director, Urban Administration and Development, was directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim and take appropriate steps for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with law, preferably within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.