Authority must decide compassionate appointment representations through reasoned orders in light of judicial precedents.

The applicant is the son of Late Karnail Singh, who was engaged as a CP Worker by the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department on September 5, 2000.

The engagement was granted because the father provided his private land (measuring 01 Kanal 01 Marla) for the construction of a public water tank.

The father served until his death on October 6, 2016, without being regularized despite alleged departmental assurances.

The applicant filed representations for compassionate appointment on June 5, 2025, and February 14, 2026, which remained pending.

Consequently, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for appointment in light of previous judicial precedents and the disposal of his pending representations.

1. Whether the respondents can be directed to consider and decide the applicant's pending representations for compassionate appointment in a time-bound manner.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to consideration for appointment based on the judgment in Basharat Hussain v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of applications for the redressal of grievances regarding service matters.

The precedent set in Basharat Hussain v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (O.A. No. 61/931/2023, decided on June 2, 2025), which established the framework for considering similar claims for appointment within the department.

The administrative law principle requiring authorities to pass "reasoned and speaking orders" when deciding employee representations.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s counsel limited the prayer to a request for a time-bound disposal of the pending representations.

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the appointment, the court found it appropriate to direct the administrative authorities to perform their duty of considering the claim.

The Tribunal integrated the current Original Application with the previous representations (dated June 5, 2025, and February 14, 2026) to be treated as a consolidated formal representation.

By directing the respondents to consider the case specifically in the context of the Basharat Hussain judgment, the Tribunal ensured that the applicant's claim is evaluated against established legal benchmarks for CP workers and land-donors.

The court emphasized procedural fairness by requiring a "reasoned and speaking order" to be communicated to the applicant, ensuring transparency in the decision-making process.

The respondents are ordered to consider the applicant’s case in terms of the judgment in Basharat Hussain v. UT of J&K and pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of the order.

No costs were awarded.