The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant's claim for appointment as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds, based on eligibility and parity with others, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

O R D E R (ORAL)

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as an Orderly on compassionate grounds vide Order No. 146 of 2016 dated 30.12.2016 following the death of his father. Subsequently, vide Order No. 54 of 2020 dated 16.06.2020, he was placed as In-charge Junior Assistant on a makeshift basis. It is submitted that the applicant was a graduate and fully eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant even at the time of his initial appointment. Accordingly, he submitted several representations seeking appointment to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from the date of his initial appointment. It is further contended that, in similar cases, the respondents had appointed compassionate appointees directly as Junior Assistants, thereby extending the benefit to similarly situated persons. Despite submitting a fresh representation dated 19.06.2026, the respondents have failed to take any decision thereon.

02. Learned counsel further submits that the issue is no longer res integra, as the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, in T.A. No. 8618/2020, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant therein on the same analogy as adopted in similarly situated cases. Despite the settled legal position, the respondents have failed to consider the applicant's claim, thereby subjecting him to hostile discrimination by denying him parity with similarly situated compassionate appointees. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant is entitled to appointment as Junior Assistant with effect from the date of his initial appointment, together with all consequential benefits.

03. It is further submitted that under the provisions of SRO 43 of 1994 , the respondents were required to appoint the applicant to the lowest non-gazetted post commensurate with his eligibility. Since the applicant possessed the requisite qualification of graduation at the relevant time, he ought to have been appointed as a Junior Assistant or, at the very least, to an appropriate non-gazetted post instead of being appointed as an Orderly. The action of the respondents is stated to be contrary to the statutory provisions governing compassionate appointments and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, particularly when similarly situated persons have been granted appointment as Junior Assistants.

04. It is also submitted that the applicant has exhausted the available departmental remedy by submitting repeated representations, but no decision has been taken by the respondents. The applicant further declares that no other proceedings involving the same cause of action are pending before any Court or Tribunal.

05. Accordingly, the applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Junior Assistant with retrospective effect from the date of his initial appointment, along with all consequential benefits. In the alternative, he seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his claim on the same analogy as adopted in the case of similarly situated compassionate appointees. Pending disposal of the Original Application, the applicant also prays for a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide his pending representation in the light of the judgment rendered in T.A. No. 8618/2020.

06. However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and consider the claims raised therein, along with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

07. Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on advance noti