Subsequent suspension of compassionate appointments cannot justify rejecting claims governed by an earlier policy.

The applicant’s father, a Phone Mechanic employed with BSNL, died in harness on 08.07.2003.

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 31.10.2003 after completing Intermediate education.

His claim remained under consideration for several years and was ultimately rejected by orders dated 09.09.2011 and 09.01.2012.

The applicant challenged those orders in O.A. No. 1309 of 2012, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 07.11.2019 with a direction to reconsider his claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

Upon reconsideration, BSNL rejected the claim by order dated 04.01.2020, relying principally on its policy dated 09.04.2019 keeping compassionate appointments in abeyance for vacancies arising after 01.04.2018 and stating that no unfilled vacancies existed before that date.

The applicant challenged the fresh rejection in the present proceedings under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim by order dated 04.01.2020, based on the BSNL policy dated 09.04.2019 and the alleged absence of unfilled vacancies, complied with the earlier Tribunal direction dated 07.11.2019?

Whether the mere lapse of time since the employee’s death could defeat the applicant’s claim when the claim had been submitted promptly but remained pending due to administrative delay?

Whether the applicant’s claim was required to be reconsidered under the compassionate-appointment scheme and policy applicable to his case, rather than being rejected solely by reference to a subsequent policy keeping such appointments in abeyance?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment, intended to enable the family of a deceased employee to overcome the sudden financial crisis caused by the death, and does not confer a vested right to appointment at any time.

It also relied on Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa & Others, (2024) 15 SCC 766, for the principle that delay attributable to the authorities in considering a compassionate-appointment claim should not operate to the applicant’s prejudice.

The Tribunal further considered the DoP&T policy dated 09.10.1998, the BSNL compassionate-appointment scheme and BSNL’s letter dated 27.06.2007, as well as the later BSNL policy dated 09.04.2019 keeping appointments in abeyance for vacancies arising after 01.04.2018.

The governing principle was that the claim had to be reconsidered under the applicable scheme and in faithful compliance with the earlier judicial direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Although compassionate appointment is not an accrued or perpetual right, the applicant had applied within a reasonable period after his father’s death, and the prolonged delay was substantially attributable to the respondents’ failure to finally and lawfully decide his claim.

The earlier Tribunal order dated 07.11.2019 had directed reconsideration of the claim by a reasoned and speaking order.

However, the impugned order merely relied on the subsequent BSNL policy dated 09.04.2019 and concluded that there were no unfilled vacancies before 01.04.2018.

The Tribunal found that this approach did not comply with the earlier order, which had already indicated that the 2019 policy concerned vacancies arising after 01.04.2018, whereas the applicant’s claim pre-dated that policy.

The respondents were therefore required to examine the applicant’s claim under the applicable compassionate-appointment scheme and the observations in the earlier order, rather than reject it solely on the basis of the later policy or vacancy position.

The Original Application was accordingly allowed, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside.

The competent authority was directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines and the order dated 07.11.2019, and to place it before the Circle High Power Committee when convened.

A reasoned and speaking decision was to be communicated to the applicant within three months from the date on which the Committee considered his claim.

No order as to costs was made.