Clerk’s Son’s Compassionate Job Claim To Be Reconsidered; Age Over 25 At Father’s Death Alone Cannot Bar It: CAT

The applicant’s father, a Lower Division Clerk, died in harness on 13 November 2008, and the applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 16 December 2008.

Following earlier Tribunal directions to decide and reconsider his claim, the respondents rejected it by order dated 5 August 2019. The applicant challenged that rejection, alleging errors in the assessment of dependent family members and family property, and contending that he should have received 43 grading points rather than 25.

The respondents stated that the High Power Committee found the applicant ineligible because he was over 25 at the time of his father’s death; they also relied on the applicable grading criteria and the selection cut-off.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the principle that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and must be considered in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.

It held that, where the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee’s income, the claim could not be rejected solely on the basis of age; the competent committee had to assess it under the applicable eligibility conditions and other relevant criteria.

The Tribunal also noted that its earlier orders directing consideration or reconsideration did not require the applicant’s appointment.

The Tribunal found that the impugned rejection rested on the applicant being over 25 when his father died.

Although compassionate appointment is not an entitlement, the claim still had to be considered under the applicable scheme. The age-based rejection could not stand as the sole ground; the competent committee was required to assess the claim against the relevant eligibility conditions and other criteria.

The Tribunal did not otherwise disturb the earlier committee orders, noting that those orders had not been challenged.

It disposed of the O.A. by directing the competent Circle Relaxation Committee to reconsider the claim at its next meeting, apply the relevant rules and criteria, prepare a detailed parameter-wise chart explaining marks awarded or withheld, and issue a fresh reasoned decision to the applicant.

No order as to costs was made.