Minority at time of death justifies relaxation of prescribed time limits for compassionate appointment.

The applicant’s mother, Tazeem Akhter, a teacher in the School Education Department, died in harness on October 27, 2010

At the time of her death, the applicant was a minor aged nine years

The applicant’s father initially applied for compassionate appointment in 2011, but his request was rejected in 2013 as he was over-aged by five months and twelve days

After attaining majority, the applicant submitted a representation for appointment on March 12, 2020

Following a previous direction from the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1768/2021, the respondents issued the impugned order dated February 17, 2024, rejecting the applicant’s claim

The rejection was based on the grounds that the applicant failed to attain majority or acquire the requisite qualification within one year of the employee’s death as per SRO-43 of 1994

1. Whether the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim solely on the ground that a dependent was a minor at the time of the employee's death and failed to apply within one year is legally sustainable

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the relaxation of rules under SRO-43 of 1994 when the delay in application is attributable to the minority of the applicant

SRO-43 of 1994, specifically Rule 3(1) regarding the one-year limitation for applications and Rule 7, which provides the power to relax rules in hardship cases

Supreme Court precedent in Saurabh Chaudriya v. State of Madhya Pradesh Ors., which held that rigid time limits should not bar minors who apply shortly after attaining majority

High Court of JK’s ruling in Gowhar Nazir Malla v. State, regarding the mandatory consideration of relaxation clauses

High Court of JK’s ruling in Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Union of India Ors., which established that delay due to minority is not fatal to compassionate appointment claims

The Tribunal found that the applicant was legally incapable of seeking appointment within the stipulated one-year period due to his minority at the time of his mother's death

The court reasoned that the objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate "succour to the bereaved family" and should not be defeated by "hyper-technical interpretation" of limitation rules

The Tribunal noted that since the father’s claim had already been dismissed, the applicant remained the sole surviving claimant

It determined that the respondents' rejection was mechanical and reflected a "non-application of mind" because they failed to evaluate the case under the relaxation provision of Rule 7 of SRO-43

the court held that the applicant applied within a reasonable time after attaining majority, and the rejection based on delay was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

It held that the applicant is entitled to consideration despite the delay caused by his minority

The respondents were directed to appoint the applicant to an available Class-IV or lowest rank post in the School Education Department within 12 weeks

The Tribunal further ordered that if no vacancy is currently available, the respondents must create a supernumerary post to accommodate the applicant

No costs were awarded