The Tribunal directed the respondents to decide a pending representation for compassionate appointment by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with applicable rules and law, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the claim.

(Open Court)

ORDER

1. Mr. Sunil holding brief for Mr. Ashish Srivastava,learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, are presentand heard.

2. The instant Original Application has been filed seeking the following reliefs: -

“A- Issue an order or direction directing the respondents to decide the representation/application dated 6.12.2020 (Annexure No. 2) of the applicant.

B- Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

C- Award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant's mother, late Smt. Maya Devi, was working as Upper Division Clerk (Group-C) in the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Kanpur, and died in harness on 01.04.2002, leaving the applicant, who was then about four years old, as her dependent. The applicant states that her parents had already obtained a decree of divorce and, after the death of her mother, she was brought up by her maternal uncle and aunt. After attaining majority and having no source of livelihood, the applicant submitted an application dated 26.11.2020 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, followed by a representation dated 06.12.2020. Despite subsequent representations, including a Public Grievance and a communication to the Prime Minister’s Office, no final decision was communicated on her claim. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in deciding her claim for compassionate appointment, the applicant has filed thepresent Original Application.

4. Learned brief holder for learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant’s mother died in harness on 01.04.2002 when the applicant was only about four years old and, being a minor at that time, she could not have applied for compassionate appointment. It was submitted that after attaining majority, the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and submitted an application dated 26.11.2020 followed by a representation dated 06.12.2020, but despite repeated representations and communications, the respondents have failed to take any final decision on her claim. Learned brief holder, therefore, submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation forcompassionate appointment in accordance with law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant’s claim is to be considered in accordance with the applicable instructions and theprescribed criteria for compassionate appointment.

6. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that mere pendency of an application or representation does not create any substantive right in favour of the applicant for compassionate appointment. It was submitted that compassionate appointment is governed by the applicable DoPT instructions and is subject to assessment of the applicant’s case in accordance with the prescribed criteria and availability of vacancy. It was further submitted that the assessment under the DoPT O.M. dated 02.08.2022 was incomplete and that the matter would be decided in accordance with the said instructions. Accordingly, it was submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed and the Original Application is liable to bedismissed.

7. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant.

8. At this stage, learned brief holder for learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide her representation dated 06.12.2020, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

9. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In view of the limited prayer m