Pending compassionate appointment claims must be considered when the scheme is revived.

The applicant’s father, a permanent BSNL employee, died in harness on 25 March 2015.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment through a representation submitted by his mother on 9 April 2016.

The claim was rejected by orders dated 26 September 2016 and 11 June 2018.

The respondents stated that the applicant secured 20 points, below the 55-point minimum, and that BSNL had subsequently kept its compassionate-appointment scheme in abeyance.

The applicant filed this OA seeking to quash the rejection orders and obtain reconsideration for appointment.

1. Whether the rejection orders dated 26 September 2016 and 11 June 2018 should be quashed and the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment reconsidered

2. Whether the applicant could receive relief while BSNL’s compassionate-appointment scheme was in abeyance

The Tribunal relied on BSNL Circular No. 273-18/2013/CGA/Estt-IV, dated 9 April 2019, which kept the compassionate-appointment scheme in abeyance for three years, and the order dated 7 March 2022 extending the effect and operation of that circular.

The Tribunal’s applied principle was that, while the scheme remained in abeyance, the department was not considering compassionate-appointment cases; the applicant’s case could therefore be considered when the scheme was revived, under the departmental rules then applicable.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited.

The Tribunal noted the respondents’ submission that the applicant had scored 20 points against the 55-point minimum, but it did not decide the merits of that assessment.

Instead, it treated the 2019 circular and its 2022 extension as preventing consideration of compassionate-appointment cases at that time.

On that basis, it found that no immediate relief could be granted, while preserving the applicant’s claim for consideration if and when the scheme was revived.

It directed the competent authority among respondents 2 to 4 to consider the applicant’s case if the compassionate-appointment scheme is revived, in accordance with the relevant departmental rules then in force.

The associated MAs were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.