Facts
The applicant’s father, a Postal Assistant, died in harness on January 2, 2014
Source reference: p. 1The applicant, being the eldest son and responsible for his mother and younger siblings, applied for a compassionate appointment in June 2014
Source reference: p. 2The Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) rejected the application on April 28, 2015, stating the family was not in a "more indigent" condition compared to other applicants
Source reference: p. 2The respondents contended that out of 42 applicants for 11 vacancies, the applicant scored 39 points on a 100-point scale, while the last recommended candidate scored 53 points
Source reference: p. 4The applicant sought reconsideration in 2016, which was summarily rejected by the respondents by referring to the previous 2015 decision
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the respondents were justified in permanently closing the applicant's case for compassionate appointment based on a one-time comparative merit assessment
Source reference: p. 72. Whether the time-limit or "old" nature of a claim can be a ground for rejection in light of revised Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines
Source reference: p. 5-7Law Applied
The court primarily applied the consolidated instructions on compassionate appointments issued by the DoPT dated January 16, 2013, which define the object of the scheme as relieving family penury
Source reference: p. 5It relied on DoPT O.M. No. 14014/3/2011-Estt.(D) dated July 26, 2012, which withdrew the previous three-year time limit for considering such applications, following the Allahabad High Court judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010
Source reference: p. 5-6The court also noted the 5% quota limit for compassionate appointments and the relative merit point system established by the Department's guidelines dated October 20, 2010
Source reference: p. 3-4, 6Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the primary objective of the scheme is to alleviate financial destitution
Source reference: p. 5While acknowledging that compassionate appointment is not an absolute right and is limited by a 5% vacancy ceiling, the Tribunal emphasized that the financial condition of a deceased employee's family and the pool of applicants change over time
Source reference: p. 6-7The court reasoned that a candidate who was "less meritorious" in one year might qualify in a subsequent year if their penurious condition persists and the applicant pool changes
Source reference: p. 7The Tribunal found the respondents' decision to close the case for being "too old" or "less meritorious" without assessing the current state of penury to be unjustified, especially since the 2012 DoPT guidelines removed the three-year restriction on considerations
Source reference: p. 6-7Holding
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application in part, quashing the impugned order dated May 7, 2015, to the extent that it permanently closed the applicant’s case
The Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled to reconsideration on merits
Source reference: p. 7The respondents were directed to place the applicant’s case before the CRC in its next meeting for a fresh assessment and to issue a reasoned and speaking order regarding his suitability for appointment
Source reference: p. 7-8No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
MUKESH KUMAR KOLIvsD/o Postal
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in