Facts
The applicants are the widow and children of Late Rajesh Kumar Dhanuk, a former employee of the Government Medical Stores Department (GMSD) who died in harness on August 19, 2022
Source reference: p. 3Following his death, Applicant No. 1 (the widow) submitted multiple representations between February 2023 and March 2024 seeking compassionate appointment for her son, Applicant No. 2
Source reference: p. 3-4The applicants alleged financial distress due to the loss of the family's sole breadwinner
Source reference: p. 4The respondents stated that they had initiated the process for filling compassionate appointment quotas but were limited by vacancies, having received 45 applications for only three available Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) posts and zero Lower Division Clerk (LDC) posts
Source reference: p. 4A Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) was previously constituted to screen these applications
Source reference: p. 4-5Issues
Whether the respondents are mandated to consider and dispose of the pending representations for compassionate appointment within a reasonable timeframe
Source reference: p. 2, 5Law Applied
The case was adjudicated by a single-member bench as authorized by Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Source reference: p. 2The court relied on the procedural framework for compassionate appointments established by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum dated August 27, 2021, and the Revised Scheme for compassionate appointment communicated on January 12, 2023
Source reference: p. 4These rules dictate the initiation of a screening and scrutiny process through a dedicated committee to evaluate applicants based on merit and available quotas.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The court examined the competing interests of the applicants’ financial exigency and the respondents’ administrative constraints regarding limited vacancies
Source reference: p. 4It noted that while the respondents had already initiated the process by constituting a Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) to evaluate 45 candidates for three posts, no final decision had been reached regarding Applicant No. 2
Source reference: p. 4-5The court determined that the most equitable remedy was not to grant an immediate appointment—as vacancies are limited and merit-based—but to compel the administrative machinery to function within a fixed duration
Source reference: p. 5By directing the CAC to meet, the court ensured that the applicants’ request would be formally evaluated against the criteria set forth in the DoP&T O.M. and the Revised Scheme
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Tribunal directed the competent respondent authority to convene a meeting of the Compassionate Appointment Committee to consider the case of Applicant No. 2 and other eligible applicants within two months of receiving the certified order
The court did not grant the specific relief of appointment but mandated the consideration of the application in accordance with the law
Source reference: p. 5The Original Application was disposed of with no order as to costs
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
SMT CHANDRA KANTI DHANUKvsHEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in