Sangeeta vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, one of the counsel for applicant and Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, counsel for the respondents are present.

Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that this O.A. has been filed by the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment in place of her husband-Late Ram Ji Lal who died in harness on 02.09.2024. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the husband of applicant was serving the respondents’ department as ATT IC No. 275 in BSNL Office, Maudaha under Hamirpur, District U.P. However, during the service period, he died on 02.09.2024. The applicant has submitted an application to SDO BSNL Hamirpur UP for her appointment on compassionate ground vide her application dated 19.08.2025. In reply to her letter dated 19.08.2025, The Prachalan Chhetra Pramukh Hamirpur has informed that the compassionate appointment in the respondents’ department has been kept in abeyance till further orders beyond 30.03.2022 in pursuance of BSNL HQ New Delhi letter No. BSNL CO-A/15(27)/1/2022-ESTAB dated 07.03.2022 and circle office Lucknow letter No.-Rectt/M-42/Endorsement/2021 dated 19.03.2022. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the due to death of her husband, the applicant has been facing days of starvation as she herself and two sons were dependent upon the deceased employee.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that he has filed the Counter Reply in which it is submitted that applicant's reliance on compassionate appointment guidelines dated DoP&T O.M No. 14014/6/94-Estt (D) dated 09.10.1998 is misconceived, as BSNL being a PSU has its own CGA policy and the referred DOPT OMs are not applicable to BSNL in toto. The said guidelines operate subject to the prevailing policy. As the appointment on compassionate ground being kept in abeyance for post-01.04.2018 vacancies, the said guidelines cannot be acted upon for granting compassionate ground appointment. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant's case pertains to a death that occurred on 02.09.2024 and, therefore, any vacancy arising thereafter falls squarely within the same period for which compassionate ground appointment has been kept in abeyance. Hence, the claim is not maintainable under the extant policy.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the admission of respondents and keeping in view the ban created through the letters dated 9.4.2019 and 7.3.2022 regarding keeping the cases of compassionate appointment in abeyance till further orders, I am of the view that present OA could be disposed of on the basis of submission made on behalf of the respondents for considering the candidature as and when ban is lifted.

Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of and respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground on merit along with other candidates as and when ban is lifted and when next Circle High Power Committee is constituted for the purpose of compassionate appointment. It is also observed that the order must contain the details such as number of vacancies in the year/years in which applicant's case was considered, names of the candidates who were considered and their relative merit in the selection process. No order as to costs. All the pending MAs in the O.A. also stands disposed off