Respondents directed to consider compassionate-appointment representation and issue a reasoned, speaking order within six weeks.

The applicant, Anmol Kumar, sought appointment on compassionate grounds in place of his deceased father, Late Shri Radhey Shyam, who had served as a Group ‘C’ Labourer under the respondents from 1 May 1992 and died in harness on 23 August 2016.

The applicant relied upon his pending representation dated 20 September 2026 and sought consideration of his claim, along with consequential benefits.

During the hearing, counsel for the applicant requested liberty to file a fresh and comprehensive representation supported by relevant documents, earlier representation, and case law.

The respondents accepted notice but sought time to obtain instructions, stating that they had not received a copy of the Original Application.

Whether the applicant should be permitted to submit a fresh, comprehensive representation concerning his claim for compassionate appointment, along with supporting documents and the earlier representation?

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a specified period?

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment and grant consequential benefits at the admission stage?

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which confers jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal over service-related grievances.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a competent authority must consider a properly submitted representation in accordance with law and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the matter was disposed of without examining the merits, no specific statutory rule governing compassionate appointment or precedent concerning such appointment was applied or adjudicated upon.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s immediate request was for consideration and disposal of his representation rather than an immediate determination of entitlement to compassionate appointment.

As the respondents had not yet obtained instructions and claimed not to have received the Original Application, the Tribunal considered it appropriate not to enter into the substantive merits.

It instead permitted the applicant to submit a fresh and comprehensive representation containing all relevant material, including the earlier representation and supporting case law.

The respondents were then directed to examine the claim in accordance with law and issue a reasoned and speaking order, thereby preserving the applicant’s claim while leaving the merits open.

The respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of its receipt.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment.

The Original Application and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.