Departmental delay cannot defeat a timely compassionate appointment claim when prescribed eligibility requirements are met.

The applicant’s father, an Incharge Headmaster in the School Education Department, died in service on 15 February 2015.

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 on 11 May 2015, while still a minor.

The respondents processed the application and sought verification of his educational qualifications; the qualifications were verified in 2021, and a vacant Class-IV Chowkidar post was identified.

In a communication dated 26 April 2022, the Administrative Department advised the Director, School Education, Jammu, to consider the applicant’s case against an available Class-IV post under SRO 43 of 1994 read with SRO 177 of 2014, subject to eligibility and document verification.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking compassionate appointment, alleging that his case had remained undecided despite completion of the required formalities.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in keeping the applicant’s compassionate appointment claim pending for several years despite his timely application, verification of his qualifications, identification of a vacancy, and the Administrative Department’s advice to consider his case?

2. Whether the Tribunal could direct the respondents to finalise the applicant’s compassionate appointment, subject to applicable eligibility requirements and statutory formalities?

The Tribunal applied SRO 43 of 1994, read with SRO 177 of 2014, as the governing framework for the applicant’s compassionate appointment claim.

It reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary public recruitment, is not an automatic or hereditary right, and must be considered in accordance with the applicable scheme; its purpose is to provide assistance to the family of an employee who dies in service.

Where an application is made within the prescribed period and the claim is under consideration, the authorities must examine and decide it fairly and within a reasonable time.

The Tribunal cited no judicial precedents.

The applicant had applied within the prescribed period, and the respondents accepted that his case was processed after he attained the prescribed age.

The stated verification concerns had been substantially resolved, a suitable Class-IV vacancy had been identified, and the Administrative Department had advised consideration under the applicable rules.

In the absence of a final rejection for ineligibility, the Tribunal found no justification for leaving the matter pending indefinitely or making the applicant bear the consequences of departmental delay.

It therefore directed finalisation of the claim, while preserving the requirement that the applicant satisfy the prescribed conditions.

The respondents were directed to appoint the applicant under SRO 43 of 1994 read with SRO 177 of 2014 against the identified Chowkidar post, if available, or another suitable Class-IV vacancy, subject to eligibility and completion of remaining statutory formalities.

They were not to reject the claim merely because time had elapsed or unnecessarily reopen verification already completed, absent specific material warranting further verification.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order; any outstanding statutory deficiency was to be addressed by a reasoned order within that period.

No order as to costs was made.