AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Sunil, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
(i)This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 (Annexure No.A-1). (ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the department to re-examine the weightage point of applicant and consider him for appointment on compassionate ground with all consequential benefits.
(iii)Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of present case.
(iv)Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicant.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Rajkumar, is the son of Late Om Prakash, who was working in the respondents’ department on the post of Sorting Assistant and died suddenly during service on 17.12.2012. The applicant, being the son of the deceased employee, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. The mother of the applicant had already expired during the lifetime of his father. There were six members in the family of the deceased employee. The respondents considered the candidature of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds in the CRC meetings held on 24.04.2014 and 25.04.2014 against the 5% quota. However, the applicant secured only 51 points, whereas the last selected candidate secured 53 points, and consequently, no recommendation for appointment of the applicant could be made. In the impugned order dated 02.06.2015, the respondents have also disclosed the status of the applicant’s candidature as “Deemed Rejected-I”, referring to the Directorate’s Letter No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II dated 20.07.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the present Original Application has been filed seeking quashing of the respondents’ decision/observation regarding closure of consideration of the applicant’s candidature and a direction to the respondents to reconsider his candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds.
By filing the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, the respondents have opposed the claim of the applicant, relying upon the aforesaid Directorate’s letter dated 20.07.2023. It has been pleaded that the applicant secured only 51 points, whereas the last selected candidate secured 63 points, and, therefore, his candidature could not be recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds. Referring to the Directorate’s letter dated 20.07.2023, annexed with the counter affidavit, it has further been pleaded that specific directions were issued to close the cases of those candidates whose candidature had been considered on three occasions but who had failed to secure marks higher than those obtained by the last selected candidate, and whose names could not, therefore, be recommended for appointment, by treating their cases as “Deemed Rejected”. It has accordingly been pleaded that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the instructions contained in the Directorate’s letter and that there is no illegality or perversity in the same.
A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the applicant, reiterating substantially the facts pleaded in the Original Application and refuting the averments made in the counter affidavit. It has specifically been stated that the earlier restriction limiting consideration of a candidate’s candidature for compassionate appointment to three occasions has since been withdrawn/revoked and, therefore, no such bar presently exists. It has further been contended that the primary consideration for compassionate appointment is whether the family of the deceased employee continues to remain in penurious circumstances and whether there is an immediate need for financial assistance to sustain the family of the deceased employee. Thus, according to the applicant, his candidature ought to be considered on the basis of the prevailing financial condition and the continuing need of the family, rather than being rejected merely on the ground that his candidature had earlier been considered on three occasions.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order, whereby the candidature of the applicant has been rejected for all times to come, is illegal and unsustainable. It is further submitted that, even if the contents of the Directorate’s letter dated 20.07.2023 are taken into consideration, the candidature of the applicant had been considered only once and, therefore, the said instructions could not have been applied to his case. It is also submitted that the mother of the applicant had predeceased his father and, therefore, no family pension is being received by the family. The family has only been paid the terminal benefits admissible on the death of the deceased employee. It is further submitted that the deceased employee left behind a family comprising six members and that there is no other source of income for the family. Thus, the financial condition of the family continues to be precarious and the need for immediate financial assistance still subsists. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Original Application deserves to be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to reconsider the candidature of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the family of the deceased employee had received the admissible terminal benefits and that the points were allotted to the applicant strictly in accordance with the guidelines contained in the relevant Office Memorandum. It was further submitted that the family of the deceased employee is not in penurious circumstances. Since the applicant secured lower marks than the last selected candidate, the competent authority rightly closed consideration of his candidature by treating the same as “Deemed Rejected”. It was, therefore, argued that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and suffers from no illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Tribunal.
Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will be useful to quote the impugned order. The same is as under:-
To,
Shri Raj Kumar
S/o late Om Prakash
House No. 135, Bhood Bharat Nagar
Ghaziabad - 201009
No. Rectt/M-5/01/2014/3 Dated: 02.06.2025
Sub: Regarding compassionate appointment case of Shri Raj Kumar S/o late Om Prakash, SA RMS “SH” Dn, Saharanpur.
Ref: Your application dated 28.04.2025
This is regarding compassionate appointment case of Shri Raj Kumar S/o late Om Prakash, SA RMS “SH” Dn, Saharanpur.
In this regard, it is informed that the compassionate appointment case of Shri Raj Kumar S/o late Om Prakash, SA RMS “SH” Dn, Saharanpur was considered earlier by the CRC in its meeting held on 24.04.2014 & 25.04.2014, but it could not be recommended as the vacancies for compassionate appointment under 5% quota of Direct Recruitment were filled up by the candidates whose financial condition was indigent than the other candidate. The merit point of the applicant was 51 while the merit point of the last recommended candidate was 63.
Further, in compliance of the instructions contained in Directorate’s letter No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II dated 20.07.2023, the case was listed under “Deemed rejected-I” category. Therefore, the case cannot be reconsidered.
This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
(Bhola Shah)
Assistant Director (Rectt)
It will also be useful to quote the Directorate’s letter No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II dated 20.07.2023. The same is as under:-
No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II
Government of India
Ministry of Communications
Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
Dated the 20th July, 2023
To
All Chief Postmasters General
Subject: Scheme for compassionate appointment – Clarifications in respect of Relative Merit Points and Procedure for selection.
Madam/Sir,
Please refer to this office letter No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II dated 23.03.2022 providing for Revised Relative Points System and procedure (RMPS-2022) for compassionate appointments in the Department of Posts. RMPS-2022 are applicable w.e.f. 23.03.2022 and all the CRC meets on or after 23.03.2022 are following these guidelines. It has been brought to the notice of the Directorate that there are some confusions in Circles regarding guidelines issued regarding Rejection of case in Para 5 of letter dated 23.03.2022. In this regard, it is clarified as under:
(i)CRC shall reject a case/application in third time if the case is not recommended in third consideration depending upon RMP of the case. An incomplete case should not be considered by CRC. However, if an incomplete case considered by CRC in past, its consideration should not be counted for the purpose of counting of total 3 times considerations.
(ii)It is not necessary to consider a case 3 times continuously in a row in respect of past cases. However, if a fresh case is considered by CRC after issue of RMPS-2022, it should be considered 3 times continuously in a row.
(iii)(a) Past applications/cases which were not categorically rejected by previous CRCs and not considered for a total of 3 times in previous CRCs should be considered till completion of 3 times considerations. CRC shall ‘Reject’ the case in third time if the case is not recommended in third consideration depending upon RMP of the case.
(b)In past, as per recommendations of CRC in some Circles, candidates have been listed out in minutes of CRC under categories viz. ‘Recommended’; ‘Not Recommended’ and ‘Recommended for reconsideration by next CRC’ and no candidate has been listed out under ‘Rejected’ category. Circles have considered ‘Not Recommended’ candidates as ‘Rejected’ candidates and accordingly not considered them in CRC conducted after issue of RMPS-2022. In this regard, Circle is directed to prepare a list of such past candidates considered as ‘Deemed Rejected-I’ with the approval of Competent Authority i.e. Head of Circle. As such, past candidates should be considered for a total of 3 times by the CRC if they have not been listed out in ‘Deemed Rejected-I’ list.
(iv)Past applications/cases considered for a total of 3 times or more (whether or not considered for 3 times continuously in a row in past CRCs) in previous CRCs, should be considered rejected under ‘Deemed Rejected-II’ category. After issue of RMPS-2022, these cases should not be placed before CRC even if past CRC has recommended to reconsider the case in next CRC. However, a case already considered for a total of 3 or more times in past and pending before the Court as on 23.03.2022, i.e. date of issue of RMPS-2022, it may be reconsidered as per directions of Court for one more time only.
2.Circles will circulate this to all offices under their administrative control for dealing with requests/applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
3.This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.
(Hemant Kumar)
Assistant Director General (SPG)
Copy to: The GM, CEPT – for uploading this letter on India Post website and for making above provisions in online portal of compassionate appointment.
Similarly, it is also pertinent to reproduce the office memorandum vide which three years time limit for making compassionate appointment has been revoked. The same is as under:-
F.No.14014/3/2011-Estt. (D)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 26th July, 2012
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject:- Review of three years time limit for making compassionate appointment.
The primary objective of scheme for compassionate appointment circulated vide O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998 is to provide immediate assistance to relieve the dependent family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant from financial destitution i.e. penurious condition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006 filed by Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu has observed that “an appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind”.
2.This Department’s O.M. No. 14014/6/1994-Estt. (D) dated 09.10.1998 provided that Ministries/Departments can consider requests for compassionate appointment even where the death or retirement on medical grounds of a Government servant took place long back, say five years or so. While considering such belated requests it was, however, to be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the Government servant in order to relieve it from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should not normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision to make appointment on compassionate grounds in such cases was to be taken only at the level of the Secretary of the Department/Ministry concerned.
3.Subsequently vide this Department’s O.M. No. 14014/19/2002-Estt. (D) dated 5th May, 2003 a time limit of three years time was prescribed for considering cases of compassionate appointment. Keeping in view the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad judgment dated 07.05.2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010, the issue has been re-examined in consultation with Ministry of Law. It has been decided to withdraw the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 05.05.2003.
4.The cases of compassionate appointment may be regulated in terms of instructions issued vide O.M. dated 09.10.1998 as amended from time to time. The onus of examining the penurious condition of the dependent family will rest with the authority making compassionate appointment.
(Mukta Goel) Director (E-I) Tel. No. 2309 2479
To All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.
In the present matter, as is evident from the record, the deceased employee died in the year 2012 and the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds immediately thereafter. His candidature was considered for the first time by the Committee in the year 2014, but he could not be recommended for appointment as he had secured lower marks than the last selected candidate. Thereafter, consideration of his candidature was closed by relying upon the Directorate’s Letter No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II dated 20.07.2023. However, if the contents of DoP&T’s F.No.14014/3/2011-Estt. (D) are taken into consideration, it is evident that the earlier restriction limiting consideration of candidature for compassionate appointment to three occasions has been withdrawn where the penurious condition of the family of the deceased employee continues to subsist. In the present case, the candidature of the applicant has been considered only once and, therefore, the aforesaid restriction cannot be applied to his case. Although the applicant had secured lower marks than the last selected candidate on the earlier occasion, considering the subsequent change in the applicable instructions and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to provide an opportunity for reconsideration of his candidature on the basis of the present financial condition of the family.
Accordingly, the impugned order, to the extent it closes the candidature of the applicant as “Deemed Rejected” for all times to come, is set aside. The respondents are directed to place and consider the candidature of the applicant in the next CRC meeting, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules/instructions, after assessing whether the family of the deceased employee continues to be in penurious circumstances and whether the other prescribed conditions for compassionate appointment are fulfilled. With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application is disposed of. No order as to costs.
All associated M.As., if any, also stand disposed of.