Competent authority directed to decide compassionate appointment representation by a reasoned order.

The applicant’s mother, Smt. Maya Devi, was employed as an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Kanpur, and died in harness on 1 April 2002.

The applicant was approximately four years old at the time and was dependent on her mother.

After attaining majority, she submitted an application dated 26 November 2020 for compassionate appointment, followed by a representation dated 6 December 2020.

She alleged that, despite subsequent representations and communications, the respondents had not communicated a final decision on her claim.

During hearing, the applicant limited her prayer to a direction for consideration and disposal of her representation dated 6 December 2020 by a reasoned order.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 6 December 2020 concerning compassionate appointment.

Whether the pendency of the applicant’s representation or application created an enforceable substantive right to compassionate appointment.

Compassionate appointment is not an automatic or vested right arising from the death of a government employee; it is governed by the applicable DoPT instructions and is subject to the prescribed eligibility and assessment criteria, including consideration of the family’s financial condition and availability of vacancies.

Mere pendency of an application or representation does not create a substantive right to appointment.

A competent authority considering such a claim must act in accordance with the applicable rules and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

While directing consideration of a representation, it should not adjudicate the merits of the underlying claim unless necessary.

The applicant’s immediate grievance was not adjudicated on the merits of her entitlement to compassionate appointment, but was the alleged failure of the competent authority to decide her pending representation.

Since compassionate appointment is governed by the applicable DoPT instructions and is dependent upon prescribed criteria and vacancy availability, the Tribunal declined to treat the pending representation as conferring any right to appointment.

However, in view of the limited relief sought, it considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine the representation and issue a reasoned decision in accordance with law.

The Tribunal expressly left all questions concerning the merits of the applicant’s claim open.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim for compassionate appointment.

No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.