Compassionate appointment claims must be reconsidered afresh with head-wise assessment and a reasoned order.

The applicant’s father, who was employed as a Chowkidar under the Military Engineering Services, died on 15 February 2000.

The applicant’s case for compassionate appointment was initiated in 2006, but no final decision was reached.

The applicant subsequently submitted certificates and no-objection certificates from other family members.

A Board of Officers was convened on 27 February 2019 to assess his suitability, and points were awarded under the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 2 November 1993.

The applicant challenged Appendix–C dated 27 February 2019, alleging that his claim had been assessed mechanically and that his family’s financial condition had not been properly considered.

The respondents contended that the case could not be decided because adequate documents had not been supplied, despite repeated requests.

During the proceedings, however, the respondents stated in their letter dated 13 February 2023 that the applicant’s case could be considered afresh if he submitted a fresh application along with all requisite documents.

Whether the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment had been mechanically assessed and required reconsideration on the basis of the relevant material and his actual financial condition.

Whether, in light of the respondents’ offer to reconsider the matter afresh upon submission of a complete application, the Tribunal should direct a fresh assessment by the competent authority.

The Tribunal applied the administrative principle that a claim for compassionate appointment must be considered by the competent authority on the basis of the prescribed criteria and relevant material, with proper head-wise assessment of points under the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 2 November 1993.

It further applied the principles of procedural fairness and reasoned decision-making, requiring the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation, provide an opportunity to submit any further documents or explanation required, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant alleged an improper and mechanical assessment, while the respondents maintained that the matter remained incomplete because necessary documents had not been furnished.

Since the respondents themselves had subsequently agreed to reconsider the applicant’s candidature afresh upon submission of a complete application, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to finally adjudicate the correctness of the earlier assessment at that stage.

It therefore directed the applicant to submit a fresh application with all requisite documents and required the respondents to assess the claim in the next CRC meeting by assigning head-wise points and issuing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also safeguarded procedural fairness by directing that the applicant be given an adequate opportunity of hearing and be informed if any additional documents were required.

The applicant was directed to submit a fresh application for compassionate appointment along with all requisite documents.

Upon receipt, the respondents were directed to reconsider his case in the next CRC meeting, award head-wise points, and pass and communicate a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant was also to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and notice of any further documents required.

All connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.