AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Satish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, are present and heard.
Present Original Application has been filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
“II. To set aside the impugned order dated 23/25.10.2018 passed by Senior Superintendent, Head Post Office, Meerut Division, Meerut (Annexure No1).
III. To issue order or direction directing the Director, Postal Services, Office of Postmaster General, Bareilly Region, Bareilly/respondent No.4 to decide the appeal filed by the applicant, expeditiously, as possible as within stipulated time fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
IV. To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
V. To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.”
Brief facts of this case are that the father of the applicant while posted as Postal Assistant in the Postal Department, Head Post Office Meerut Cant, was declared disabled for service and was granted disability pension. Thereafter, the father of the applicant died on 13.02.2015 at the age of 54 years. After that the respondents gave the proposal for compassionate appointment to his widow namely Chandrakanta Devi who refused it on the ground that her sons are unemployed, therefore, an application was moved by the family of the deceased employee for grant of compassionate appointment to the applicant namely Pradeep Singh. Vide the impugned order dated 23/25.10.2018, Respondent no.3 rejected the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment on the ground that as per information provided through synopsis from the applicant, he got 33 merit points whereas the person who is entitled to get compassionate appointment obtained 52 merit points, thus, the applicant could not be given compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel for the applicant, referring to the relief clause argued that the respondents be directed to re-consider the candidature of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the relief clause, argued that relief no.8.III is not related to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as the appeal has been filed under the RTI Act, 2005 which will be decided by the appellate authority as designated under the RTI Act, 2005. He further argued that the applicant has not made a specific prayer for re-consideration of the candidature of the applicant for compassionate appointment.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
Keeping in view the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, without going into the technicalities/merit of the O.A., the same is hereby disposed of with the direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to re-consider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment on the basis of merit points in the next CRC meeting to be held for the purpose.
All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.