Compassionate appointment claims require reasoned reconsideration complying with judicial directions and addressing alleged parity.

The applicant’s father, Late Ghulam Hassan Rather, was employed as a Beldar in the Civil Construction Wing of All India Radio, Srinagar, and died in an accident while in service on 7 September 2012.

The applicant’s mother thereafter sought compassionate appointment for the applicant. His claim was considered under Prasar Bharati’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), but he was not recommended after securing 60 points, while selected candidates had secured 75 and 79 points.

The applicant challenged the non-selection before the High Court in SWP No. 251/2018. The High Court directed the respondents to consider his claim in the light of its judgment dated 15 September 2015 in SWP No. 1108/2015, concerning Ms. Pooja, provided the applicant’s case was squarely covered by that judgment.

The respondents ultimately passed a speaking order dated 24 November 2022. The order recorded that the applicant had secured 58 points, whereas candidates recommended for appointment had secured higher marks, and consequently rejected his claim while permitting him to submit updated information for future consideration.

Whether the speaking order dated 24 November 2022 adequately complied with the High Court’s directions requiring reconsideration of the applicant’s claim in the light of the judgment dated 15 September 2015 in SWP No. 1108/2015?

Whether the respondents were required to specifically examine the applicant’s claim of parity with Ms. Pooja, including the alleged grant of age or other relaxation in her case?

Whether the period consumed in pursuing administrative and judicial proceedings could be mechanically treated as delay defeating the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment?

Whether the applicant was entitled, at that stage, to a direction for compassionate appointment?

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 ordinary rule of recruitment, intended to provide immediate relief to a family facing financial distress, and is not a vested or indefeasible right.

In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560, the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is a concession governed strictly by the applicable scheme.

MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583, similarly established that such claims must be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme.

The Tribunal also relied on Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., 2025 INSC 184, for the propositions that the eligibility requirements of the scheme cannot be bypassed, but relief should not be denied solely because time was consumed in bona fide judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings not attributable to the claimant.

The respondents were required to apply Prasar Bharati’s SOP and its point-based assessment of factors such as family pension, terminal benefits, income, property, dependants, minor children and unmarried daughters.

A direction to reconsider a claim in the light of an earlier judgment requires meaningful consideration of the legal and factual circumstances contemplated by that judgment, with reasons for granting or denying the claimed benefit.

The Tribunal held that the respondents were entitled, and indeed required, to assess the applicant’s financial condition under the SOP; the applicant’s prolonged pursuit of the claim did not by itself create a right to appointment.

However, the impugned order merely recorded the applicant’s score of 58 points and compared it with the higher scores of selected candidates. It did not examine whether the applicant’s case was factually and legally covered by the judgment concerning Ms. Pooja, nor did it provide reasons for granting or refusing any corresponding relaxation.

The dismissal of the contempt petition did not amount to adjudication of the correctness of the speaking order, particularly because the High Court had left the applicant free to challenge that order in accordance with law.

Since the respondents had not produced the complete record concerning Ms. Pooja’s selection, appointment and alleged relaxation, the Tribunal declined to determine parity itself.

Nevertheless, it directed the competent authority to examine that plea, distinguish the cases with reasons if appropriate, and consider whether similar treatment was legally permissible.

The Tribunal further held that the period spent in bona fide litigation could not be mechanically attributed to the applicant, although this did not dispense with assessment under the governing scheme.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim afresh under the applicable SOP and in compliance with the High Court’s orders in SWP No. 1108/2015, SWP No. 251/2018 and the subsequent contempt proceedings.

The competent authority was specifically directed to examine the complete record concerning Ms. Pooja, including any relaxation granted to her, address the applicant’s parity claim with reasons, consider the effect of the period spent in litigation, undertake the requisite point-based assessment, and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal expressly declined to direct appointment or to give a final finding on the applicant’s eligibility, suitability, entitlement to relaxation, parity with Ms. Pooja or the correctness of the points awarded.

No order as to costs was made.