Legal heirship alone does not confer compassionate appointment without continuing dependency and financial distress.

The applicant’s mother, a Laboratory Bearer (now designated as MTS) in the School Education Department, died in harness on 13 August 2021.

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 6 January 2022.

After processing the application, the competent authority rejected it on 29 July 2025, finding that it did not merit consideration.

The respondents relied on the applicant’s status as a married daughter who had established a separate family, and contended that she had not demonstrated the requisite dependency or continuing element of compassion under the applicable scheme.

The applicant sought to quash the rejection and obtain appointment, or alternatively a fresh consideration of her claim.

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s compassionate-appointment claim under SRO-43 of 1994 was unlawful or otherwise warranted interference by the Tribunal.

Whether the applicant’s status as a surviving legal heir, notwithstanding her subsequent marriage and establishment of a separate family, established entitlement to compassionate appointment.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal.

Under Rule 2(d) of SRO-43 of 1994, compassionate appointment is available to an eligible family member dependent on the deceased Government employee.

SRO-120 of 2018 amended the scheme to require satisfaction that the element of compassion continued to exist in the family.

The Tribunal applied the principles that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment, intended to provide assistance where a deceased employee’s family faces circumstances warranting exceptional consideration; it is not a mode of succession or an indefeasible right of a legal heir.

Legal heirship and dependency are distinct, and timely submission of an application secures consideration under the scheme, not an automatic right to appointment.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s mother died in harness and that the application was processed, but held that those facts did not establish entitlement.

The applicant’s marriage and separate family were relevant to whether she remained dependent on the deceased employee’s family.

Her status as a legal heir, including in light of the deaths of other family members, did not independently establish dependency or the continuing element of compassion required by the amended scheme.

The Tribunal found no material showing that the rejection was illegal, arbitrary, or perverse, and held that timely filing did not cure the failure to meet the scheme’s substantive requirements.

It declined to quash the rejection or direct appointment and dismissed the Original Application without an order as to costs.