Unsupported administrative ban cannot justify blanket rejection of compassionate appointment claims without committee evaluation.

The applicant’s father, Late Munshi Mochi, was employed as a Garden Attendant under the Botanical Survey of India and died while on duty on 27 October 2008.

The applicant thereafter sought appointment on compassionate grounds.

His claim was processed by the authorities, and a physical verification report dated 4 June 2018 recorded that the family was living in extreme indigent circumstances.

In an earlier proceeding, O.A. No. 350/0455/2021, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation and pass a reasoned order.

In a further proceeding, O.A. No. 350/0956/2022, the Tribunal quashed that decision and directed the respondents to take a holistic view, considering the applicable policy and the applicant’s indigent condition.

The respondents thereafter rejected the claim by order dated 6 October 2023, solely on the ground that the Ministry had imposed a ban or moratorium on compassionate appointments in the Botanical Survey of India.

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

Whether the applicant’s claim was required to be reconsidered under the extant Department of Personnel and Training guidelines, having regard to the physical verification report confirming the family’s indigent condition and the availability of vacancies.

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

It applied the established principle that 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 who was the family’s sole breadwinner.

The Tribunal relied upon the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memoranda dated 9 October 1998 and 16 January 2013 governing compassionate appointments, observing that no demonstrated order had been issued keeping that policy in abeyance.

It further applied the requirement that claims for compassionate appointment must be evaluated by the properly constituted Compassionate Appointment or Screening Committee on the basis of comparative merit, the applicant’s indigent circumstances, and the vacancies available.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s indigent condition had already been confirmed by the physical verification report dated 4 June 2018 and that the earlier order had specifically required a holistic reconsideration of his claim.

The impugned order, however, rejected the claim solely by referring to an alleged Ministry-imposed ban, without placing any supporting material on record and without demonstrating that the DoPT scheme itself had been suspended.

Since the respondents had not assessed the applicant’s claim through the competent committee on the basis of comparative merit, financial hardship, and available vacancies, the rejection was held to be procedurally and substantively inadequate.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that the claim had to be reconsidered under the extant compassionate appointment guidelines rather than rejected through a blanket administrative decision.

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 applicable DoPT guidelines.

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

The competent authority was directed to complete the process and issue a fresh reasoned speaking order within twelve weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

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