Inordinate delay and promissory estoppel preclude the rejection of compassionate appointment claims after induced relinquishment of entitlement.

The applicants, the daughter (Applicant No. 1) and widow (Applicant No. 2) of Late Shri Ajay Manhas, a teacher who died in harness on 13.04.2016

Applicant No. 2 initially applied in 2017

During the pendency of the application, the respondents advised Applicant No. 2 to relinquish her claim and provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favor of Applicant No. 1, who had recently attained majority, on the grounds that she was better qualified

the respondents rejected Applicant No. 1’s claim via an impugned order dated 25.04.2023, citing her minority at the time of death and that the case lacked merit

1. Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay by the respondents in deciding the compassionate appointment application defeats the object of the scheme

2. Whether the respondents are bound by the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation after inducing the widow to relinquish her claim in favor of her daughter

3. Whether the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 is arbitrary due to the absence of cogent reasons and non-communication

Compassionate Appointment Scheme under SRO 43 of 1994 (read with SRO 177 of 2014), which is a beneficial provision intended to mitigate immediate financial hardship for families of employees who die in harness

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, which prevents the State from resiling from a representation when a party has altered its position to its detriment based on that representation

principle of Natural Justice, requiring administrative orders affecting rights to be supported by reasons and communicated timely to ensure transparency and fairness

The Tribunal found the eight-year delay in processing the application unexplained and fatal to the purpose of the compassionate scheme, which is to provide urgent relief

the subsequent rejection of Applicant No. 1's claim constituted a breach of promissory estoppel, as the family acted upon the State's assurance to their own detriment

The Tribunal further noted that the respondents could not "approbate and reprobate" by first suggesting the daughter's eligibility and then rejecting it based on rules known to them throughout the process

The impugned order was deemed legally unsustainable because it lacked reasoned justification and was not communicated to the applicants in a timely manner

The respondents were directed to appoint Applicant No. 1 on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 (read with SRO 177 of 2014) within eight weeks of receiving the order