Facts
The applicant’s father, a Senior Admin Assistant in the respondent department, died in harness on January 10, 2017
Source reference: p. 1The applicant submitted an initial application for compassionate appointment on February 6, 2017
Source reference: p. 2This application was rejected four years later, on March 3, 2021, without assigned reasons
Source reference: p. 2Following a fresh application on August 13, 2021, the respondents again rejected the claim via an order dated February 23, 2022
Source reference: p. 2The respondents contended that the Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) evaluated the case using a "100-point scale" but could not recommend the applicant due to a lack of vacancies and lower inter-se merit
Source reference: p. 3The applicant challenged the 2022 rejection, alleging it was a "stereotype order" passed without proper consideration of the family's financial distress
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the compassionate appointment claim after a four-year delay, citing administrative feasibility and limited vacancies without detailing the family’s financial condition, is legally sustainable.
Source reference: p. 5-62. Whether the delay in processing the application defeats the primary objective of the compassionate appointment scheme.
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
The court applied the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) guidelines regarding compassionate appointments, which limit such appointments to 5% of direct recruitment vacancies in Group ‘C’ posts
Source reference: p. 4It relied heavily on the precedent established in Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1976), which mandates that claims for compassionate appointment must be considered expeditiously to mitigate the immediate financial hardship caused by the death of a breadwinner
Source reference: p. 6The court also emphasized the requirement for speaking orders that reflect an assessment of penury and financial distress based on the "100-point scale" factors, such as family pension, terminal benefits, and dependents
Source reference: p. 4-5Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that while the respondents cited the "100-point scale," the impugned order failed to provide specific details regarding the family’s actual financial condition or a comparison of merit points against successful candidates
Source reference: p. 5The court highlighted a significant procedural lapse: the respondents took four years to issue the first rejection (2017 to 2021) without explaining the delay or the reasons for rejection
Source reference: p. 5The Tribunal reasoned that the purpose of the scheme—to provide immediate relief to a family in distress—is frustrated when the administration delays scrutiny
Source reference: p. 6Consequently, the court found it "highly unfair" for the department to eventually reject a case on administrative grounds or implicit delay when the delay was attributable solely to the respondents’ own inaction
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Tribunal held that the impugned order lacked sufficient reasoning and violated the principle of expeditious consideration required for compassionate claims
The court quashed and set aside the order dated February 23, 2022
Source reference: p. 7The matter was remitted to the respondents with a direction to reconsider the applicant’s case in accordance with the approved scheme and government guidelines within three months of receiving the order
Source reference: p. 7The Original Application was allowed with no order as to costs
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
NOOR HASANvsDEFENCE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in