Compassionate Appointment | Delay in Filing Cannot Bar Consideration of Merits : Central Administrative Tribunal

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has clarified that delay in approaching the tribunal for compassionate appointment does not automatically bar consideration of the claim on merits. In a significant ruling, the Tribunal directed the authorities to decide pending representations within three months, emphasizing procedural fairness over technical objections of delay.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicants, Phool Chandra and his mother Smt. Nanki Devi, sought compassionate appointment following the death of Keshaw Lal, who was working as a Khalasi in the North Central Railway. At the time of his father's death in 1998, Phool Chandra was a minor. The family did not immediately apply for compassionate appointment, but submitted their first representation on 03.01.2003. Subsequent representations were made over the years, with the latest dated 21.11.2025.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following key stages:

• 1998: Death of Keshaw Lal, leaving behind minor son Phool Chandra
• 2003: First representation for compassionate appointment submitted
• 2025: Latest representation submitted on 21.11.2025
• 2026: Original Application filed before CAT, Allahabad

Relief Sought

The applicants sought directions to the respondents to consider their representations for compassionate appointment, particularly focusing on the merits of their claim rather than the delay in approaching the Tribunal.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Tribunal was whether the delay of nearly 28 years in filing the Original Application under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 should automatically bar consideration of the compassionate appointment claim on its merits.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicants

The counsel for the applicants argued that:

• The delay was not willful, as the first applicant was a minor at the time of his father's death
• Multiple representations were made over the years, demonstrating continuous pursuit of the claim
• The relief sought was limited to consideration of the representations on merits, not an outright grant of appointment
• Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure, and technical objections should not defeat substantive justice

For the Respondents

The counsel for the respondents contended that:

• The Original Application was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
• The cause of action arose in 1998, and the first representation was made only in 2003
• The applicants failed to approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time
• The delay was inordinate and unexplained, warranting dismissal of the application

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal carefully balanced the competing considerations of procedural compliance and substantive justice. While acknowledging the delay in filing the Original Application, the Tribunal observed that the applicants had consistently pursued their claim through representations to the authorities.

The key aspects of the Tribunal's reasoning included:

1. Nature of Compassionate Appointment: The Tribunal recognized that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate relief to families of deceased government employees. This purpose would be defeated if technical objections were allowed to prevail over substantive claims.

2. Limited Relief Sought: The applicants were not seeking an outright grant of appointment, but merely a consideration of their representations on merits. This limited prayer weighed in favor of allowing the matter to be decided on its merits.

3. Continuous Pursuit of Claim: The Tribunal noted that the applicants had made multiple representations over the years, indicating that they had not abandoned their claim. This distinguished the case from those where applicants had completely failed to pursue their rights.

4. Procedural Fairness: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of reasoned and speaking orders in administrative decisions. By directing the authorities to decide the representations within three months, the Tribunal ensured that the applicants would receive a considered decision rather than a summary rejection based on delay.

"Considering the submission of counsel for the parties and limited relief prayed by the applicants' counsel for considering the representation by the respondents, I am of the opinion to dispose of the O.A. with direction upon the respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the representations of the applicants dated 03.01.2003 as well as 21.11.2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order."

The Tribunal made it clear that it was not expressing any view on the delay and laches in filing the Original Application, leaving that aspect to be decided by the authorities while considering the representations.

The Verdict

The Original Application was disposed of with the following directions:

1. The respondents were directed to consider and decide the applicants' representations dated 03.01.2003 and 21.11.2025 within three months
2. The decision must be a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the rules
3. The decision must be intimated to the applicants forthwith
4. No costs were awarded

What This Means For Similar Cases

Delay Does Not Automatically Bar Consideration

This judgment establishes that:

• Inordinate delay in approaching the Tribunal does not automatically bar consideration of compassionate appointment claims on merits
• Authorities must consider the substantive aspects of the claim, even if the procedural timeline has not been strictly adhered to
• Practitioners should emphasize the continuous pursuit of claims through representations to distinguish cases from those where rights have been abandoned

Importance of Reasoned Administrative Decisions

The Tribunal's insistence on a reasoned and speaking order has significant implications:

• Authorities cannot reject compassionate appointment claims through summary orders
• Each decision must clearly articulate the reasons for acceptance or rejection
• This requirement enhances transparency and provides a basis for potential judicial review

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

Practitioners handling similar cases should:

• Frame limited relief: Seek consideration of representations on merits rather than outright appointment
• Document continuous pursuit: Maintain records of all representations made to authorities
• Emphasize welfare aspects: Highlight the humanitarian purpose of compassionate appointment provisions
• Prepare for merits-based arguments: Be ready to address the substantive aspects of the claim, as technical objections may not suffice for rejection