Payment to consenting family members alone cannot justify rejecting a compassionate appointment claim.

The applicant’s father, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, died in harness on 25 January 2016.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment, supported by consents from his mother and sisters.

The claim was rejected in 2018 after the consents were considered suspicious because they allegedly had been given in exchange for consideration. Following an earlier Tribunal direction to decide the applicant’s representation by a reasoned order, the respondents rejected it again on 13/15 April 2019. The applicant challenged that order, arguing that fresh affidavits denying the alleged consideration had not been properly examined.

1. Whether the alleged receipt of consideration by family members in connection with their consents could, by itself, justify treating the applicant’s compassionate-appointment claim as suspicious.

2. Whether the respondents properly considered and verified the family members’ subsequent affidavits before rejecting the applicant’s representation.

The Tribunal did not cite a specific statute, precedent, or detailed provision of the applicable compassionate-appointment scheme as the basis for its decision.

It applied the principle that the fact that family members gave consent in favour of an applicant after receiving money is not, by itself, sufficient to render a compassionate-appointment claim suspicious; the claim must be considered on the relevant material, including subsequent affidavits, which should be properly examined and verified.

The Tribunal found that the 2019 rejection rested mainly on the allegation that the applicant’s mother and sisters had given consent after receiving consideration. It held that this fact alone was insufficient to make the claim suspicious.

Because the family members later submitted affidavits denying the alleged payment and supporting the applicant, the respondents should have properly examined and verified those affidavits. The record did not show that such an enquiry or verification had occurred, making the impugned order unsustainable.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s claim under the applicable rules and scheme, taking account of the fresh affidavits and other relevant documents, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The authority may require other family members to appear to verify the affidavits. No order as to costs was made.