M CHANDRAMOULI vs POST AP CIRCLE

1
OA.No.65/2022

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING AT VIJAYAWADA
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/0065/2022
ORDER RESERVED ON 24.09.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 16.10.2026

HON’BLE MR. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

M.Chandramouli, S/o Late M.Ramanjaneyulu
Aged about 38 years, Presently not working
Ex-GDS (Temporary) Nelagonda BO
R/o Nelagonda Village, Guntakal Mandal
Anantapuram District – 515 801, A.P. …..Applicant

(By Advocate: Sri T.P.Acharya)
Vs.


1. Union of India, Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi – 110 001, Represented by the Director General.

2. The Chief Postmaster General
A.P.Circle, Vijayawada – 520 013.

3. The Postmaster General, Kurnool Region
B Camp Office, Kurnool – 518 002.

4. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Anantapur Division, Anantapuram – 515 001.

5. The Chairman, Committee on Compassionate
Engagement (CCE) – cum- Postmaster General
Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam – 530 001.

6. The Member, Committee on Compassionate
Engagement (CCE) – cum – Director of Postal
Services, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada – 520 013.

7. The Member, Committee on Compassionate
Engagement (CCE) – cum – Director of Postal
Services (Hqrs), O/o the Chief Postmaster General
A.P.Circle, Vijayawada – 520 013. ….Respondents

(By Advocate: Sri P.Krishna, Addl.CGSC)
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

2
OA.No.65/2022

O R D E R
PER:HON’BLEMR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER


1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“….to declare the action of Respondents 5 to 7 in not
recommending the case of the applicant for compassionate
appointment as GDS, BPM duly recording that the applicant is
involved in RD fraud without giving any particulars and also
without any basis and denying the appointment on compassionate
grounds to the applicant by the Respondents on such incorrect
recording as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the
Respondents to appoint the applicant as GDS BPM in Anantapur
Division on compassionate grounds forthwith and grant him all
benefits from the date of this application as if he is appointed as
GDS BPM on the date of this applicant as his case was illegally
denied and pass such other and further order or orders as are
deemed fit and in the circumstances of the case.”


2. The facts of the case, in brief, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant’s father, while working as Grameena Dak Sevak Branch
Post Master (GDS BPM) of Nelagonda Branch Post Office, a/w
Konakondla SO, Ananthapur Division, died in harness on 24.04.2006,
leaving behind his widow, two daughters and the applicant herein. Due
to sudden death of the employee and seeing poor economic condition of
the family, Respondents engaged the applicant as Branch Postmaster,
Nelagonda B.O., on 25.06.2006, and continued him, thereafter, on
temporary basis. Before engaging him on temporary basis as Branch
Postmaster, Nelagonda B.O., the then ASP, Guntakal Sub Division, had
collected the synopsis and other particulars about the family of the
applicant for considering his case for appointment on compassionate
ground as GDS BPM. The entire material, along with the
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

3
OA.No.65/2022

th rd
recommendation of the 4 Respondent, was sent to the 3 Respondent,
nd
who, in turn, forwarded the same to the 2 Respondent, on 13.09.2010.
ii. The applicant submits that the Circle Selection Committee (CSC, in
nd
short) was to meet during December, 2010, but the 2 Respondent, for
reasons best known to him, had delayed the consideration of the
applicant's case. However, the same was placed before the Circle
Selection Committee which met on 10.05.2012. His case was rejected
by the CSC on the ground that the relative merit points awarded to the
applicant were below 51. The rejection order was received by the
applicant on 23.05.2012.
th
iii. The applicant submits that the Supdt. of POs, Anantapur Divn./4
Respondent had issued a notification inviting applications from
outsiders to fill up the post of BPM, Nelagonda. Aggrieved by the
rejection as well as issue of the notification, the applicant had filed
O.A.No.668 of 2012 before this Tribunal which had passed interim
order by which the applicant was continued as GDS, BPM, Nelagonda,
without any interruption. Finally, the Tribunal had disposed of the said
OA, on 20.07.2016, directing the Respondents therein to place the case
of the applicant before the CRC for reconsideration of his case on the
basis of merit points in accordance with the criteria laid down in the
letter, dt.17.12.2015, within three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order.
rd
iv. The applicant submits that the PMG, Kurnool Region/3 Respondent
had issued proceedings, dt.06.03.2017, informing that the applicant is
not found eligible for engagement under compassionate grounds by the
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

4
OA.No.65/2022

Circle Relaxation Committee, in the meeting held on 10.01.2017 and
11.01.2017, which followed the guidelines, dt.10.06.2016. Basing on the
said proceedings, the applicant, who was on duty, was forced to hand
over the records to one Mr.Dilip Kumar, by the Asst. Supdt. of Post
Offices, Guntakal Division.
v. Aggrieved by the said action, applicant had filed another OA.No.476 of
2017, by raising a number of grounds. After hearing both sides, this
Tribunal had disposed of the OA, on 18.06.2019, by quashing the
impugned order and directed the Respondents to reconsider the request
of the applicant for compassionate appointment as was directed by this
Tribunal in OA.No.668 of 2012, by applying the revised norms as
contained in memo, dt.17.12.20215, and applicant may be considered to
any existing vacancy of BPM in Anantapur Postal Division.
vi. It is submitted that the Respondents appear to have placed his case
before the Committee on Compassionate Engagement (CCE) which met
on 22.09.2020, headed by Respondent No. 5 in which Respondent Nos.
6 & 7 were members. The minutes of said Committee contained two
Annexures. Annexure I contained the list of candidates whose cases
were recommended to be engaged as GDS. Annexure II contained the
cases of the candidates who were not recommended for the reasons
mentioned against each in the said Annexure. The name of the applicant
was shown in Annexure II at Sl. No. 3. In the remarks column against
his name, it was recorded as ‘involved in RD fraud’ while working as a
substitute.
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

5
OA.No.65/2022

vii. The applicant has questioned the action of the Respondents on the
following grounds:
a. The reason given is very vague and without any particulars. The
fraud attributed is totally incorrect and misleading, just to deprive the
applicant of the employment since he had repeatedly approached this
Tribunal and obtained orders on merits.
b. During the period when he was working as GDP BPM, on temporary
basis, from 25.06.2006 till 06.03.2017, inspection was conducted
every year and, at no point of time, it was recorded in the inspection
reports that the applicant was involved in any RD fraud. Thus, it is
not understood as to how the Respondents 5 to 7 came to the
conclusion that the applicant was involved in RD fraud.
c. The applicant was in service for about 11 years as GDS BPM, on
temporary basis, and, at no point of time, any charge of RD fraud
was framed against him nor was any enquiry conducted and the same
was proved against him. As the said remark causes stigma to the
applicant, he should have been put on notice, but without doing so,
recording the stigmatic remarks against the applicant and denying
him compassionate appointment, is arbitrary, illegal and voilative of
principles of natural justice and thus the same has to be set aside.

3. On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement, wherein they have
averred as follows:
i. Keeping in view the objective of the Scheme for engagement of
Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs, in short) on compassionate grounds, the
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

6
OA.No.65/2022

existing procedure has been reviewed by the Postal Directorate and a
new scheme for engagement of GDSs on compassionate grounds and a
merit points based selection procedure was introduced, vide
st
Directorate, New Delhi/1 Respondent letter No. 17-17/2010-GDS,
dt.14.12.2010, which is applicable to all compassionate cases to be
considered on or after 01.01.2011. Later, the Postal Directorate issued
partial modifications/clarifications to the existing provisions of the
newly introduced merit points scheme, vide letters No.17-17/2010-
GDS, dt.01.08.2011, 09.03.2012, 13.04.2012 and 09.10.2013,
according to which, the merits of the cases can be conveniently
indicated by allocating points to the Applicants based on various
attributes, based on a 100-point scale to achieve the objective of the
scheme and to ensure complete transparency. All requests for
compassionate engagement would be considered by the Circle
Relaxation Committee (CRC, in short), on application of the relative
merit points prescribed by the Directorate subject to the availability of
vacancy, on fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the GDS post. It
is further submitted that the term "hard and deserving cases" would
mean cases over and above 50 merit points. As per Para 3 of the
Directorate's letter, dt.14.12.2010, only exceptional and deserving
cases are to be considered, as the scheme stipulates that compassionate
engagement is to be given only in "indigent and deserving cases".
Subsequently, the Government / Department revised the merit points
for various attributes, vide Directorate's letter No. 17-17/2010-GDS,
dt.17.12.2015. In the said order, the threshold for adjudging “hard and
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

7
OA.No.65/2022

deserving cases” was revised as 36 merit points in place of the existing
51 points. Further, a corrigendum was issued vide Directorate's Letter
No. 17-17/2010-GDS, dt.10.06.2016, that –
" The revised provisions will be given effect from the date of
issue of these instructions in respect of those cases considered
in CRCs held after 17.12.2015 and ordered that the cases
already settled before 17.12.2015 need not strictly be
reopened".

Thus, only the revised merit points notified vide the Directorate's letter,
dt.17.12.2015, and the revised threshold of 36 merit points for
adjudging hard and deserving cases is applicable for the cases
considered after 17.12.2015.
ii. The Scheme was again reviewed at the Postal Directorate and the point
system was dispensed with, vide Directorate Lr. No. 17-01/2017-GDS,
dt.30.05.2017. However, in Para (3) of the said letter, it is ordered that
the scheme will come into effect from the date of issue of the letter and
will be applicable to all cases pending and arising on or after the said
date and that the cases which have already been settled will not be
reopened.
iii. Sri M.Ramanjaneyulu, GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO a/w Konakondla
SO, who was engaged in the department on 24.01.1979, died on
24.05.2006, while in service, leaving behind his wife, one son (the
applicant, herein) and two daughters. The two daughters got married
and were living separately with their family. The deceased GDS had
rendered more than 27 years of service in the department in the GDS
cadre. Smt. M.Obulamma, wife of the deceased GDS, requested for
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

8
OA.No.65/2022

appointment of her son, M.Chandramouli, the applicant herein, as she
th
was not eligible for the GDS post having studied up to the 7 class.
Her request was processed as per the scheme and guidelines on the
subject.
iv. The bereaved family was left with property of a house, worth
Rs.50000/- at Nelagonda village, and 7.91 acres of dry land, worth
Rs.1,00,000/-. Loans worth Rs.2,34,000/- had been taken by Smt.
M.Obulamma. The applicant was allowed to work as a substitute in the
vacancy caused by the death of his father w.e.f. 24.05.2006, on a stop-
gap arrangement on the responsibility of other/neighbouring GDSs
who were given the said post, on additional charge basis, as per the
rules/procedure on the subject.
v. The request/claim of the applicant was processed as per the
scheme/guidelines and the Circle Relaxation Committee, which met on
10.05.2012, considered the case of the applicant along with other
cases, but did not recommend his case on the ground that his case had
received less than 51 merit points and opined that the case did not fall
under the category of “hard and deserving cases”, as communicated
nd
vide the 2 Respondent's letter, dt.15.05.2012. Consequent upon the
disposal of the request/claim of the applicant, a notification was issued,
vide R-4 letter, dt.29.05.2012, for filling up of the post of Gramin Dak
Sevak Branch Postmaster, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO. The
selection/recruitment process was completed and one P.Dileep Kumar
was selected for the said post and issue of appointment order was in
process.
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

9
OA.No.65/2022

vi. While the matter stood thus, aggrieved by the decision of the CRC and
issue of open notification, the applicant filed OA No.668 of 2012
before this Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide its interim order,
dt.25.06.2012, ordered that –
“There shall be interim order for two weeks as it is reported by the
learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is now working as
GDS BPM, Nelagonda Branch Post Office.

In compliance with the said interim orders, the applicant was continued
as substitute GDSBPM, Nelagonda BO. Finally, OA.668/2012 was
disposed of on 20.07.2016, with a direction to the Respondents to place
the case of the applicant before the next meeting of the Circle
Relaxation Committee (CRC) for reconsideration of his case on the
basis of revised merit points, in accordance with the criteria laid down
in letter, dt.17.12.2015, within three months.
vii. The CRC met on 10.01.2017 & 11.01.2017 and re-considered the case
of the applicant, as per the instructions, dt.10.06.2016, of the Dept. of
Posts, and issued a speaking order, vide R-3 letter, dt.06.03.2017,
finding that the applicant was not eligible for engagement on
compassionate grounds. Subsequently, Sri P.Dileep Kumar, the
selected candidate approached the Respondents, vide his
representation, dt.25.04.2017, requesting to issue necessary
appointment order to him and, accordingly, necessary appointment
order was issued. Though the applicant was not willing to hand over
the charge of the said post to the regularly selected candidate, he was
convinced that the order passed by this Tribunal was already complied
with by issuing speaking order, dt.06.03.2017, and that no claim of the
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

10
OA.No.65/2022

applicant for compassionate engagement was pending as on that date.
Sri P.Dileep Kumar, the regularly selected candidate joined the post of
GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO on 09.05.2017, and is
working as such in the said post as on date.
viii. Aggrieved, the applicant came in the second round of litigation before
this Tribunal in OA No. 476/2017 and the Tribunal disposed of the
OA, vide order, dt.18.06.2019, with a direction to the Respondents to
reconsider the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment,
as was directed by this Tribunal in OA No.668/2012, by applying the
revised norms as contained in memo, dt.17.12.2015. It was also
ordered that the Applicant may be considered to any existing vacancy
of BPM in Anantapur Postal Division within 04 months.
ix. Subsequently, the competent Authority again reviewed the instructions
under the Scheme, vide Letter, dt.05.03.2020, and approved repeal of
the sentence, the cases which have already been settled will not be
reopened’ (Para 3 of Directorate OM of even number, dated
30.05.2017), as a one-time measure, in cases earlier rejected by the
Committee on Compassionate Engagement (CCE) between the period
from 2005 and May 2017. This review, as a one-time measure, was to
be concluded by the prescribed CCE within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of the OM and the CCE, while examining
these compassionate engagement cases, was to adhere to the
instructions issued vide the Postal Directorate's OM No. 17-01/2017-
GDS, dated 30.05.2017 and 18.12.2019, in the true spirit. The four
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

11
OA.No.65/2022

months’ period was extended upto 31.08.2020 and further upto
31.10.2020.
x. On joining of Sri P.Dileep Kumar, the regularly selected candidate in
the post of GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO, on
09.05.2017, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Guntakal,
commenced cent percent verification of the said Branch Post Office,
during which, non crediting of amounts collected from the depositors
by the applicant in nine Recurring Deposit accounts was noticed and
the applicant was informed about the non credits during his period of
working, i.e., from 25.06.2006 to 09.05.2017.
xi. The applicant accepted his lapses/irregularities and credited the fraud
amount into PO accounts on 06.07.2017 at Konakondla SO and the
said amount of fraud was restored to the RD accounts of the respective
th
depositors, vide the 4 Respondent's Memo, dt.01.12.2020. The
frauds/embezzlement of public money by the applicant, while he was
working as GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO, under the
th
stop gap arrangement, was reported by the 4 Respondent, vide letter,
dt. 09.06.2020, to the competent authority while submitting the
proposal for compassionate engagement.
xii. The Committee for Compassionate Engagement (CCE) constituted for
the purpose met from 22.09.2020 to 24.09.2020 & on 15.10.2020 and
considered/reviewed the GDS CCE cases which were not
recommended by the Committee on Compassionate Engagement
(CCE) during the period from 2005 to May 2017. The applicant's case
was also considered by the GDS CCE along with all other such cases,
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

12
OA.No.65/2022

in accordance with the Directorate's orders/guidelines and submitted
that the CCE has not recommended the case for engagement to GDS
post under compassionate grounds for the reason that the 'applicant
involved in Post Office Recurring Deposit frauds while working as
nd
substitute', which was approved by the competent authority, i.e., the 2
nd
Respondent. The same was informed to the applicant, vide the 2
Respondent's Memo, dt.23.11.2020. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed
the present OA.
xiii. Further, the contention of the applicant that he was engaged as
GDSBPM. Nelagonda BO, by the Respondents is denied. The
applicant was allowed to work as a substitute in the said vacant post
under a stop gap arrangement, by giving additional charge of
Nelagonda BO to other/ neighbouring regular GDS.
xiv. Since the applicant is an outsider, and had worked as a substitute in the
vacant post of GDSBPM, on temporary basis, under stop gap
arrangement, on the own responsibility of the regular GDS who was
given additional charge of the said post, initiation of departmental
action against the applicant is not possible under the provisions of
GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules. Further, the applicant was no
more engaged in the said post/department by the time the
frauds/irregularities committed by him came to light. Therefore, the
averment of the applicant questioning as to how Respondents 5 to 7
came to the conclusion that the applicant was involved in RD fraud and
claiming that the allegation is totally baseless and incorrect and it
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

13
OA.No.65/2022

meant to deprive him of compassionate appointment, etc., does not
hold water.
xv. Respondents submit that good conduct/character and antecedents is a
must for all candidates seeking Government Service. Denial of
compassionate appointment on account of having a tainted service
record, would deter employees from indulging in misconduct.
xvi. It is further submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that
appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a
person. The primary object of such a scheme is to save the bereaved
family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to the death of the
sole bread earner. It is, thus, an exception to the general rule of
equality and not another independent and parallel source of
employment. In this connection, Respondents have relied upon the
following decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court/High
Court/Tribunal in cases filed on similar grounds, in support of their
contention:
i. The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement, dt.04.05.1994, in the
case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and
others [JT 1994(3) S.C. 525].
ii. National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Vs. Nanak Chand,
(2004) 12 SCC 487 , at Page 490:
iii. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. A. Radhika Thirumalai,
(1996) 6 SCC 394 , at Page 396:
iv. LIC Vs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718 , at
Page 721:
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

14
OA.No.65/2022

v. Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. [(2009) 6 SCC) :
vi. The Hon'ble CAT, Ahmedabad Bench order, dt.19.04.2010 , in
OA No. 179/2009 in the matter of Sri Brijesh Kumar D. Patel
Vs. Union of India & Others.
vii. The Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad Bench order, dt.01.07.2019 , in
OA No. 1044/2018 .
viii. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras judgment, dt.09.01.2018 ,
disposed the case of W.P.(MD) No.20872/2013 between P.
Balasubramanian vs. The Commissioner .
xvii. Respondents have prayed to dismiss the OA as devoid of merits.

4. Applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submissions already made in the
OA.

5. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

6. It is found that the case of the applicant has been considered, as per the
orders passed by this Tribunal in OA.668/2012 and OA.476/2017, on
20.07.2016 & 18.06.2019, respectively. The rejection by the CCE on
22.09.2020 (Ann.A-I), on the ground of fraud, is the issue before us.

7. It is a fact that the applicant worked as a substitute and there is no jural
relationship of employee and employer between the applicant and the
Respondent department whereby he could be subjected to departmental
action. Respondents have listed 9 instances of non-credit of R.D. amounts by
the applicant, which were revealed during the cent percent verification. The
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

15
OA.No.65/2022

following paragraphs in the rejoinder filed by the applicant do not absolve
him of his liability –
“5. I submit that all the transactions except at Sl. Nos. 2 and 9 belong
to April, 2017 which is after I was sent out service duly taking over
the charge from me and thus the same are created and fabricated and
made false allegations against me just to deprive me the
compassionate appointment.

6. I submit that even the entries at Sl. Nos. 2 and 9 alleged to have
been during February, 2017 are also false and incorrect and the same
have been created.”

8. With respect to the list of transactions, shown at para 11 of the reply
statement, which covers the period from 07.02.2017 till 20.04.2017, the
applicant's counsel has contended that, except the transactions shown at
Sl.No.2 & 9, all others pertain to the month of April, 2017, i.e., after the
applicant was disengaged from the charge on 06.03.2017 and is a fraud
played by the Respondents, without sufficient evidence, to deny the benefit
of compassionate appointment to the applicant. Though the applicant has
categorically denied the said allegations, at para 3 of the rejoinder,
Respondents have rebutted the same.

9. In this regard, Respondents have submitted that –
“When the same were brought to the notice, the applicant accepted his
lapses/irregularities and credited the fraud amount into PO accounts
on 06.07.2017 at Konakondla SO. The frauds/irregularities were
committed by the applicant just 2-3 months before his relief from the
post of GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO, and the same
were noticed subsequently during the course of cent percent
verification.”

The applicant has paid back the defrauded amount, accepting his lapses, and
the said amount was restored to the accounts of the respective depositors.
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

16
OA.No.65/2022

10. Thus, Respondents cannot be forced to accept a candidate for compassionate
appointment despite his involvement in fraudulent activity. They have
already granted him much needed succour immediately after his father’s
demise and the applicant could earn his livelihood for over eleven years.
Good character and antecedents are essential conditions for any appointment.
On this ground, the case of the applicant fails to meet the required standards
of probity.

11. The following observations by the respective Courts are worth considering in
the present case -
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors (JT 1994 (3)
S.C.525):

“Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable
period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in
future.”


Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. A.Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6
SCC 394:

“….has to be given in accordance with the relevant rules and guidelines
that have been framed by the authority concerned and no person can claim
appointment on compassionate grounds in disregard of such rule or such
guidance.”

CAT, Ahmedabad Bench order, dt.19.04.2010, in OA.179/2009,
between Sri Brijesh Kumar D.Patel vs. UOI & Ors.:

“When subsequent to the death of the bread earner, sufficient time has
passed and bereaved family has maintained themselves, there can be no
direction to the competent authority to consider the claim for
compassionate appointment.”


High Court of Madras judgment, dt.09.01.2018, in WP(MD)
No.20872/2013, between P.Balasubramanian vs. The Commissioner:

“15.Thus, the concept of compassionate appointment itself is to be
reconsidered by the Government and it should be restricted so as to provide
appointment only to the legal heirs of the deceased in genuine
circumstances. Otherwise, the scheme of compassionate appointment will
have a negative impacts on the good governance and further, it will affect
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA

17
OA.No.65/2022

the chances of the meritorious candidates, who can participate in the public
administration in the better manner.”

“….When the Courts are providing an exceptional scheme of
compassionate appointment to the individual, it is equally relevant to keep
in mind that such facilities provided should not affect the rights of other
citizens, who are otherwise qualified, meritorious and aspiring to
participate in the open competitive process. The granting of relief, if it
affects the Constitutional rights of other citizens, then the Courts must be
slow in granting such relief.

39. In view of the discussions made above in relation to the facts of the
case as well as the legal precedents settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India and by the Hon'ble Division Bench, this Court is of the opinion
that the scope of compassionate appointment is to be restricted to the terms
and conditions of scheme itself and the same cannot be stretched by the
Courts, so as to provide appointment on compassionate ground. This apart,
the delay is also a vital factor. The scheme of compassionate appointment
cannot be granted after a reasonable period. Such being the consistent view
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of the scheme, the
grounds raised in this writ petition deserve no further consideration."


12. In the light of the revelations about the misconduct of the applicant, he fails
to make out a case for compassionate appointment. The OA, accordingly,
fails and is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to
costs.


(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Manish Garg)
Administrative Member Judicial Member

16.10.2026

/ps/
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
aa0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:40:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA