Unsubstantiated administrative bans cannot defeat compassionate appointment claims without committee consideration under applicable guidelines.

The applicant’s father, Late Budhu alias Budho Bhuiya, was employed as a Garden Attendant under the Botanical Survey of India and died in harness on 1 November 2002. The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 8 September 2003. In 2016, the respondents sought updated particulars, which the applicant submitted, stating that he was a B.Com. graduate. A physical verification conducted by the respondents reported on 4 June 2018 that the applicant’s family was living in indigent circumstances

As no decision was taken, the applicant approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 452/2021. The Tribunal directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned order, following which the respondents stated that only one vacancy was available against approximately 95 applicants and that the applicant would be considered when his turn arose

In O.A. No. 958/2022, the Tribunal set aside that decision and directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s case holistically, in light of the physical verification report and the policy applicable on the date of the employee’s death

The respondents thereafter rejected the applicant’s claim by speaking order dated 6 October 2023, solely on the ground that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had imposed a ban or moratorium on compassionate appointments in the Botanical Survey of India

1. Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment solely on the basis of an alleged administrative ban or moratorium, without producing supporting material or placing the case before the competent Compassionate Appointment Committee?

2. Whether the applicant’s case was required to be reconsidered under the extant Department of Personnel and Training guidelines, with due consideration of his indigent condition, comparative merit and available vacancies?

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process and is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government servant facing financial crisis after the loss of the breadwinner

The Tribunal applied the Government of India’s scheme on compassionate appointment contained in the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memoranda dated 9 October 1998 and 16 January 2013

Applications must be considered by the properly constituted Compassionate Appointment or Screening Committee on the basis of the applicant’s comparative merit, indigent circumstances and the availability of vacancies

A blanket rejection based on an alleged administrative ban cannot be sustained where the respondents neither produce the order imposing the ban nor demonstrate that the applicable DOPT scheme has been kept in abeyance

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ earlier physical verification had confirmed the applicant’s indigent condition, and that the previous order had specifically required a holistic consideration of that report

However, the impugned order dated 6 October 2023 relied solely on the alleged Ministry-imposed ban and did not contain supporting material establishing the existence, scope or legal effect of such a ban

The Tribunal further noted that no DOPT order suspending or withdrawing the compassionate appointment scheme had been placed on record

Since the applicant’s case had not been evaluated by a properly constituted committee on comparative merit, financial hardship and available vacancies, the rejection was held to be procedurally and substantively deficient

It directed the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Director, Botanical Survey of India, to reconsider the applicant’s claim in accordance with the extant DOPT guidelines

The applicant’s case was to be placed before the next meeting of the Committee for Compassionate Appointment, which was directed to assess comparative merit, indigent condition and available vacancies

A fresh, reasoned and speaking order was to be passed and communicated to the applicant within 12 weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs