Sandeep Boby vs Union Of India & Ors.

Mr. Satish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed the instant Original Application seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment. The applicant’s father, who was working as a Sorting Postman in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aligarh Division, died in harness on 12.10.1997, leaving behind his widow and children. Thereafter, the applicant’s mother submitted an application dated 02.11.1998 seeking compassionate appointment for the applicant, who subsequently submitted his own application dated 05.01.2001 for consideration under the dying-in-harness rules. After processing the claim and seeking the requisite documents, the respondents considered the case in the Board Meetings held on 05.01.2012 and 06.01.2012. However, vide letter dated 30.01.2012, the applicant was informed that his case could not be recommended for compassionate appointment due to limited vacancies. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant’s claim had not been rejected on merits but could not be recommended due to limited vacancies. He contended that the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s claim against vacancies arising in subsequent years. Learned counsel further relied upon the Department of Posts’ letter dated 23.03.2022, bearing No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II, particularly paragraph 5 thereof, in support of his contention that cases for compassionate appointment are required to be considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee on three occasions.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee facing financial hardship and is not a matter of right. He submitted that the applicant’s case had been considered but could not be recommended due to the limited number of vacancies available under the prescribed scheme. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit as well as a supplementary affidavit in support of their case.

In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant reiterated the averments made in the Original Application and contended that his financial condition, assets and liabilities had not been properly assessed while awarding merit points. He further submitted that the respondents had not produced the comparative chart of the candidates considered for compassionate appointment and maintained that his claim required reconsideration.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that his claim for compassionate appointment deserved reconsideration in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 02.08.2022, bearing F. No. 14014/1/2022-Estt. (D), issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, containing the Master Circular on the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment. He, therefore, prayed for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s case in accordance with the said Office Memorandum.

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The Original Application has remained pending since 2014. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the competent authority to reconsider the applicant’s claim in accordance with the applicable scheme and instructions governing compassionate appointment, including the Office Memorandum dated 02.08.2022, to the extent applicable.

Accordingly, the respondents/competent authority are directed to place the applicant’s case before the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) for reconsideration in its next meeting, in accordance with the applicable scheme and instructions. The competent authority shall take a reasoned and speaking decision on the applicant’s claim in accordance with law and communicate the same to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that this direction shall not be construed as an order for appointment of the applicant on compassionate grounds. The Original Application is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.