Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6658

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ritu Tagore, Member (Judl.)
Mohd. Gulzar Parrey – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary J&K Government – Respondent
O.A. 894/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A R Trali
For the Respondents: Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, DAG

Administrative authorities cannot defeat a claim for compassionate appointment based on technical delays or statutory time limits when the authority itself has kept the matter under active administrative consideration and correspondence for years, failing to issue a formal rejection order.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Compassionate Appointment - Jammu & Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 (SRO-43) - Claim for appointment - Delay resulting from administrative inaction - Whether authorities can deny consideration after keeping matter under correspondence for years - Held, when authorities themselves acknowledge financial hardship and repeatedly seek age relaxation, they cannot defeat claim on technical grounds by invoking delay caused by their own inaction. (Paras 28, 30, 31)

(B) Compassionate Appointment - Purpose - To provide immediate financial relief to family of deceased employee - Object defeated if claims are kept pending for years - Held, public authorities must act fairly and consistently; prolonged departmental inaction creates legitimate expectations for consideration of the claim. (Paras 14, 35, 37)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought compassionate appointment under SRO-43 following his father's death in 2000. Although the application was initiated by his mother within the prescribed time, the respondents delayed finalization by repeatedly seeking age relaxation and requesting additional documentation for several years. No formal rejection order was ever communicated to the applicant.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the respondents are obligated to consider the claim because they actively processed it for years and acknowledged the necessity of age relaxation. The delay was primarily attributable to administrative inaction rather than the applicant, precluding the rejection of the case on grounds of limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant is entitled to consideration despite attaining majority beyond the initial period prescribed under the scheme; (ii) Whether departmental correspondence and repeated processing of a claim create a legitimate expectation preventing rejection on grounds of delay; (iii) Whether the claim is barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an administrative authority keeps a compassionate appointment claim under active consideration for years, repeatedly seeking relaxations and recommendations, they cannot later rely on technical bars or delay to defeat the claim, as the authority has effectively kept the cause of action alive through its own administrative conduct.

Result: Original Application disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks.

Table of Content
1. outline of facts and prolonged administrative processing of the compassionate appointment claim. (Para 10 , 11)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding procedural delay, limitation, and mandatory nature of the appointment rule. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. court's reasoning on the responsibility of authorities and the unfairness of rejecting claims delayed by their own inaction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
4. final direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's claim and pass a reasoned order. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

O R D E R (FINAL)

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01.Through the medium of the instant Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to appoint him under the Jammu & Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 (SRO-43), on account of the death of his father namely Late Abdul Rahim Bhat, who died in harness while serving in the Prisons Department on the intervening night of 16th and 17th July, 2000, along with all consequential benefits arising there from.

02.The case set up by the applicant, as gathered from the pleadings and documents placed on record, is that the deceased employee namely Late Abdul Rahim Bhat was serving as S.G. Warder in the Prisons Department, Jammu and Kashmir, and died while in active service, leaving behind his widow namely Mst. Dilshada Akhter and two minor children. It is pleaded that immediately after the death of the deceased employee, the widow of the deceased approached the authorities seeking compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994 so as to save the family from financial distress caused due to sudden demise of the sole breadwinner.

03.The record further reveals that the mother of the applicant submitted an application before the Hon’ble Minister of State, Home Department, Jammu, seeking consideration of her case under SRO-43. In the said application dated 28.03.2001 annexed as Annexure-I, it was specifically pleaded that her husband had died during service in the intervening night of 16th and 17th July, 2000, leaving behind a widow and two small children and that the family was facing severe hardship. It was further specifically averred therein that she had already applied under SRO-43 but no decision had been taken till that date and accordingly a request was made for providing suitable employment under the compassionate appointment scheme.

04.The material placed on record further demonstrates that the respondents themselves processed the claim of the family under SRO-43 from time to time. Vide communication No. Estt/1073/461 dated 25.04.2005 annexed as Annexure-II, issued by the Office of the Director General of Police, Prisons Department, J&K, the mother of the applicant was directed to intimate whether there was any other member in the family whose case could be considered for appointment under SRO-43 in place of the applicant-mother herself. The said communication clearly evidences that the respondents were actively processing the compassionate appointment case of the family even at that stage.

05.Pursuant thereto, the mother of the applicant expressed unwillingness to seek employment for herself and instead requested that the case of her son namely Ashiq Hussain Bhat, the present applicant herein, be considered under SRO-43. Consequently, the Prisons Department forwarded the matter to the Home Department vide communication No. Estt/1073/1956 dated 20.07.2005 annexed as Annexure-III. The said communication assumes significance in asmuch as the respondents themselves specifically recorded therein that the applicant’s date of birth was 02.12.1989 and that he was aged about 15 years and 7 months at that time and, therefore, relaxation in lower age limit was required in order to consider his case under SRO-43. The respondents further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6658

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRitu Tagore, Member (Judl.)Mohd. Gulzar Parrey – AppellantVersusChief Secretary J&K Government – RespondentO.A. 894/2022

Administrative authorities cannot defeat a claim for compassionate appointment based on technical delays or statutory time limits when the authority itself has kept the matter under active administrative consideration and correspondence for years, failing to issue a formal rejection order.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ritu Tagore, Member (Judl.)
Mohd. Gulzar Parrey – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary J&K Government – Respondent
O.A. 894/2022