Rejection of compassionate appointment requires disclosure of point breakups and adherence to current time-limit guidelines.

The applicant is the second wife of Late Rajeev Sarvaiya, who died in harness on 01.03.2017

Following his death, the applicant applied for a compassionate appointment on 27.03.2017

Although the first wife of the deceased challenged the applicant's status, the Tribunal in a separate proceeding (OA 200/34/2018) declared the applicant the legally wedded wife on 03.03.2020

The respondents rejected the applicant's claim on 06.09.2018, stating she secured only 45 points, which was below the recommended threshold

The applicant sought reconsideration on 17.09.2021, which was rejected on 18.01.2022

The applicant challenged these rejections, alleging that the respondents failed to disclose the merit point breakup and erroneously applied a superseded three-year time limit for consideration

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation due to the four-year gap between the initial rejection and the filing of the suit

2. Whether the respondents' rejection of the application based on a three-year time limit was valid in light of subsequent regulatory changes

3. Whether the respondents are obligated to disclose the specific breakup of merit points awarded under the 100-point evaluation scale

The court primarily applied the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 05.05.2003, which initially prescribed a three-year limit for keeping a candidate's name under consideration for compassionate appointment

This was interpreted alongside the subsequent DoP&T OM dated 26.07.2012, which withdrew the three-year limit in compliance with judicial precedents

The court also relied on the administrative principle of transparency in the "point-based evaluation system" used to assess financial indigency

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural objection regarding delay, condoning it to decide the case on merits in line with liberal judicial instructions

Regarding the substantive claim, the Tribunal found that the respondents' rejection was flawed because it relied on the 2003 OM instructions regarding the three-year consideration limit, which had been superseded by the 2012 OM

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that while the department used a 100-point scale to measure indigency, it failed to provide the applicant with a specific breakup of the points awarded

The Tribunal noted a significant discrepancy between the applicant's self-calculated 59 points and the respondents' 45 points

It held that the lack of transparency and non-sharing of information regarding merit points constituted unfair treatment, necessitating a reconsideration of the application under the prevailing 2012 instructions

It held that the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment deserves reconsideration in light of current DoP&T guidelines and transparency requirements

The respondents were directed to reconsider the case and pass a fresh order within 60 days, explicitly communicating the committee's result and the specific breakup of merit points to the applicant

No order was made as to costs