Compassionate appointment is a beneficial provision to mitigate financial hardship; a minor's claim remains in abeyance until they attain majority and eligibility, and cannot be denied through hyper-technical interpretations of rules or the prior rejection of another family member's claim.

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

a) Prayer seeking quashing of the bearing No. 1318 of 2024 dated 27.05.2024 issued by respondent no. 2 vide which the case of the applicant for his compassionate appointment in the department of the respondents has been rejected, as the same is arbitrary, illegal and passed with non-application of mind.

b) Prayer seeking directions upon the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for his compassionate appointment, under SRO 43 of 1994 and not SRO-376 of 2017 as the same is not applicable in case of applicant, in the interest of Justice and in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

c) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly award such other relief(s) as may be considered appropriate in the circumstances of the present case.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The applicant, Ajay Singh, is a permanent resident of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and claims to be entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment under the applicable statutory rules. His grievance arises out of Order No. 1318 of 2024 dated 27.05.2024 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The applicant assails the said order as arbitrary, illegal, and suffering from non-application of mind.

b) The factual backdrop reveals that the father of the applicant, Late Shri Naresh Kumar, was serving as a Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Police and was posted at Police Station Bani. While in active service, he expired on 15.03.2000, leaving behind his widow and three minor children, including the present applicant. At the time of death of the sole breadwinner, the family was entirely dependent upon him and was suddenly pushed into financial distress.

c) Following the death of the employee, his widow, Smt. Champa Rani, applied for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 . Her case was provisionally approved vide PHQ Order No. 3088 of 2007 dated 18.09.2007 for appointment as a Follower. However, despite such approval, she was never allowed to actually join service. The applicant asserts that repeated approaches made by the family to the authorities yielded no tangible relief, leaving the family to survive merely on family pension.

d) It is pleaded that despite extreme financial hardship, the children of the deceased were educated with great difficulty. The applicant subsequently acquired the prescribed educational qualification of 10+2, attained majority, and fulfilled all eligibility conditions including physical fitness. Upon becoming eligible, he submitted representations to the respondents seeking consideration of his case for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 of 1994 .

e) As no decision was forthcoming, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1395/2022. The said Original Application was disposed of on 10.10.2022 with a direction to the respondents to treat the application as a representation and to decide the claim of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period. Despite the clear directions of the Tribunal, th