Competent authority directed to decide the compassionate appointment claim through a reasoned, speaking order.

Sangam Lal Pandey, husband of Applicant No. 1 and father of Applicants Nos. 2 and 3, was employed as a Medical Peon under the North Central Railway and went missing on 28 August 2005.

Applicant No. 2 lodged an FIR on 14 September 2005, but Sangam Lal Pandey could not be traced.

The applicants subsequently sought compassionate appointment for their sons.

In an earlier proceeding, O.A. No. 671 of 2013, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the request in accordance with the applicable compassionate-appointment scheme and guidelines.

Upon consideration, the respondents rejected the claim.

The applicants alleged that the respondents had confused the particulars of Applicants Nos. 2 and 3, including their educational qualifications and other personal details.

The respondents maintained that the claim was inadmissible because the employee had rendered less than two years of service and because an inquiry had disclosed discrepancies regarding the applicants’ documents, date of birth, marital status and educational qualifications.

During the proceedings, the applicants requested consideration of their representation dated 6 March 2024 concerning Applicant No. 3’s claim for compassionate appointment.

The respondents raised no objection to such consideration.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment required interference on account of alleged errors or discrepancies in appreciating the particulars and documents of Applicants Nos. 2 and 3?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 6 March 2024 concerning Applicant No. 3’s claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines?

The proceedings arose under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved person to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of service matters.

Compassionate appointment is governed by the applicable Railway Board scheme and guidelines.

The respondents relied specifically on paragraph 3(2)(a) of Railway Board Circular RBE No. 164/1998 dated 26 July 1998, contending that a family is not entitled to compassionate appointment where the employee had rendered less than two years of service.

The Tribunal applied the principle that the competent authority must consider such claims in accordance with the governing scheme and must pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal noted that the earlier direction required the respondents to examine the applicants’ request strictly under the applicable compassionate-appointment scheme.

Although the applicants challenged the rejection and alleged that the respondents had mixed up the identities and particulars of Applicants Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal did not undertake a factual determination of those allegations or decide whether the respondents’ reliance on the two-year service requirement was legally and factually justified.

Instead, in view of the applicants’ request and the respondents’ consent, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to independently consider the representation dated 6 March 2024 regarding Applicant No. 3.

The authority was required to examine the claim under the applicable rules and guidelines and issue a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed period.

Respondent No. 2/competent authority was directed to consider and decide the representation dated 6 March 2024 concerning Applicant No. 3’s claim for compassionate appointment, in accordance with law and the applicable rules and guidelines, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

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