Compassionate appointment claims cannot be rejected solely on an unsupported administrative ban.

The applicant’s father, Late Sekhar Nayek, died while in government service on 27 October 2008.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment; the judgment records that the application was submitted on 8 September 2003.

A financial-assessment/physical-verification process was undertaken, and the report recorded that the applicant was living in penury without a regular source of income.

His claim was rejected on 11 October 2021 for want of vacancies.

In O.A. No. 350/0957/2022, the Tribunal set aside that rejection and directed reconsideration in light of the applicant’s financial condition.

On reconsideration, the respondents again rejected the claim by speaking order dated 6 October 2023, relying principally on an alleged moratorium or ban on compassionate appointments and the existence of a long waiting list.

The applicant challenged that order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking its quashing and consideration of his claim under the Department of Personnel and Training (“DoPT”) compassionate-appointment scheme.

Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s claim solely on the basis of an alleged administrative ban or moratorium on compassionate appointments without producing supporting material or demonstrating that the governing DoPT scheme had been kept in abeyance.

Whether the applicant’s case was required to be placed before the duly constituted Committee for Compassionate Appointment for assessment on comparative merit, indigence, and availability of vacancies.

Whether the speaking order dated 6 October 2023 was liable to be quashed for failing to comply with the Tribunal’s earlier direction to undertake a holistic reconsideration of the applicant’s claim.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the settled principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process and is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government servant facing financial crisis after the loss of the breadwinner.

The Tribunal relied on the DoPT Office Memoranda dated 9 October 1998 and 16 January 2013 governing compassionate appointment, observing that no DoPT order had been shown keeping the scheme in abeyance.

It further applied the requirement that claims be evaluated by the properly constituted Committee for Compassionate Appointment on the basis of comparative merit, the applicant’s indigent condition, and available vacancies.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s financial hardship had been confirmed by the physical-verification report and that the earlier order had specifically required a holistic reconsideration of his claim.

The respondents’ fresh rejection rested only on an alleged MoEF&CC ban or moratorium, but they placed no supporting order or other material on record to establish the existence or legal effect of such a ban.

Nor was there any demonstrated DoPT direction suspending the compassionate-appointment scheme.

The respondents therefore could not bypass the prescribed selection mechanism by rejecting the claim summarily.

The applicant’s case had to be considered by the competent committee along with other claims, with due regard to comparative merit, verified indigence, and available vacancies.

It directed the Secretary, MoEF&CC, and the Director, Botanical Survey of India, to reconsider the applicant’s claim under the extant DoPT guidelines; place it before the next meeting of the Committee for Compassionate Appointment; and have the committee assess it on comparative merit, indigent condition, and available vacancies.

A fresh reasoned speaking order was required to be passed and communicated to the applicant within 12 weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

No order as to costs was made.