Lalit Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Ram Krishna Mishra, counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant for the following relief(s): -

During service period the father of applicant namely Anand Swaroop died on 19.09.2012 leaving behind his wife namely Smt. Susheela Sharma and two sons namely Lalit Sharma and Ashish Sharma and two daughters namely Neelam Sharma and Puja Sharma. After death of father, the applicant submitted an application, within time, before Chief Post Master for compassionate appointment under dying in harness and further prayed to pay the death claim to the applicant. The applicant is well educated and he has passed M.Sc. Computer Science and he is fulfilling all term and conditions of compassionate appointment. After a long gap, applicant’s application regarding compassionate appointment has been rejected on 15.09.2014 by the Chief Post Master General, Uttar Pradesh Parimandal. The actual fact of the case is regarding home petitioners share in home only 1/7 there is 7^th Co-Sharer in the aforesaid home. The financial condition of the petitioner is very poor according to income certificate issued by Tehsildar whole income of the family is only Rs.8000/-. Counsel for the applicant submitted that due to financial hardship, the applicant could not file the Original Application within time and after arranging the fee for payment to counsel, he has filed the present O.A. along with delay condonation application No. 1117/2017, which is still pending for disposal.

In the delay condonation application, the applicant submitted that due to financial distress, the aforesaid application could not be preferred by the applicant within time challenging the order dated 14.09.2014. However, after arrangement of fees and other expenses the petitioner contacted his counsel for filing the present Original Application in the first week of February, thereafter approached a counsel at Allahabad in the month of December, 2017. The counsel was of the view that since the courts are closed for winter vacation in the month of December, 2017 and since the matter is not urgent the same may not be entertained by the Hon'ble Court/Tribunal and as directed to such the petitioner was come again at Allahabad after reopening of the Court in the month of February, 2017. In the month of July, 2017, mother of applicant fell seriously ill and recovered in the 3^rd week of August and again the applicant collected the money and then contacted counsel at Allahabad for filing the present application, the delay in filing the present application is wholly bonafide and the delay is liable to be condoned. In the month of July, 2017, applicant fallen seriously ill and recovered from illness in the 3rd week of August, 2017 and thereafter, again he collected the money and then contacted counsel at Allahabad for filing the present application. In the circumstances, the delay in filing the O.A. is wholly bonafide hence, same may be condoned.

With regard to merit in the O.A., counsel for the applicant submitted that the point so awarded i.e. ‘47’ is erroneous as the correct position of different attributes has not been considered by the respondents and accordingly, the case of applicant may be reconsidered and the respondents may be directed to award higher marks. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the Circular dated 20.07.2023 issued by the Department of Posts vide which the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment should be place before the Circle Relaxation Committee for at least three years.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has challenged the order dated 23.04.2013 by filing the O.A. in the year 2017 hence, the O.A. is highly belated and not tenable being barred by limitation. Relying upon the case of Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India and others 1992 ATC (21) 675 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Full Bench Decision in the case of Jacob Abraham V. Union of India and others 1994 ATC (28) 177, counsel for the respondents submitted that filing of successive representation would not give rise to fresh cause of action. The respondents have also filed the counter affidavit wherein they have stated that after the death, on 19.03.2012, of Late Anand Swaroop, who was working as Mail Man, SRO, Meerut, the mother of applicant had filed application on 20.04.2012 for granting compassionate appointment to the applicant. The request was forwarded to Circle Office, Lucknow on 08.01.2013 for considering the case of applicant in the meeting of Circle Relaxation Committee. The matter was put up before the Committee in its meeting held on 11, 12 and 15.04.2013, however, the applicant could not be recommended as he obtained only ‘47’ merit points while the last candidate recommended for granting compassionate appointment obtained ‘69’ merit points. There were 37 candidates with merit points higher than the applicant in the list of not recommended candidates. The decision of committee was communicated to the applicant vide office memorandum dated 26.04.2013. However, the applicant has filed the present O.A. in the year 2017. Hence, the O.A. is devoid of merit as well as barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed.

Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

First, this Tribunal takes the delay condonation application and objection thereto for disposal. Considering the submission of counsel for the parties, no doubt, cause of action arose in the year 2012 when the deceased Anand Swaroop died. However, when the financial condition of the family, who was in distress, seems to be slightly improved, the applicant has approached to this Tribunal for his grievance. The impugned orders passed by the respondents are of the year 2013 and 2014 respectively. Hence, after considering the submission of counsel for the parties and looking into the peculiar nature of the case and also the fact that this O.A. is pending since 2017, I am of the opinion to condone the delay in filing the O.A. Accordingly, M.A. No. 1117/2017 is allowed and the delay in filing the O.A. is condoned.

Now, this Tribunal touching the merits of the case. From the pleadings, on record, it is apparent that the applicant was secured ‘47’ merit points. The specific plea of counsel for the applicant is that the merit points as ‘47’ secured by the applicant is not correct as the respondents have not taken into account the different attributes while considering the case for compassionate appointment. In reply, the respondents have submitted that the matter was put up before the Committee in its meeting held on 11, 12 and 15.04.2013, however, the applicant could not be recommended as he obtained only ‘47’ merit points while the last candidate recommended for granting compassionate appointment obtained ‘69’ merit points. It is settled position that the Circle Relaxation Committee is sitting for limited purpose after the applications are received for compassionate appointment from different units/divisions and the vacancy position was also made available to the Circle Relaxation Committee. Thereafter, they have to look into all the documents and made a finding on the basis of available record. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the Circular dated 20.07.2023, issued by the Department of Posts, vide which the claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered thrice. However, in the instant case, the respondents have considered the case of applicant only for two occasions. Therefore, in my opinion, the case of the applicant should be considered on third occasion in the light of Circular dated 20.07.2023, issued by the Department of Posts.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the O.A. deserves to be allowed hence, allowed. The impugned order dated 23.04.2013 and 15.09.2014 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of applicant for compassionate appointment, in the next Circle Relaxation Committee, in accordance with the Circular dated 20.07.2023 of the Department of Posts as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to cost.