Compassionate appointment claims must receive a third consideration when previously considered only twice.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a Mail Man in the postal department.

His application was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee in April 2013, but he was not recommended: he received 47 merit points, whereas the last recommended candidate received 69. The decision was communicated by memorandum dated 26 April 2013.

The applicant challenged orders dated 23 April 2013 and 15 September 2014, alleging that his merit assessment did not properly account for the relevant attributes. He filed the Original Application in 2017, with a delay-condonation application, citing financial hardship and illness.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and considered the merits.

1. Whether the delay in filing the Original Application challenging the 2013 and 2014 orders should be condoned.

2. Whether the applicant’s compassionate-appointment claim should be reconsidered by the Circle Relaxation Committee in light of the Department of Posts’ circular dated 20 July 2023.

The Tribunal applied the Department of Posts’ circular dated 20 July 2023, which it understood to require that a compassionate-appointment claim be considered on three occasions.

It also exercised its discretion to condone the filing delay, taking account of the circumstances of the case and the matter’s pendency since 2017.

The respondents cited Bhoop Singh v. Union of India and Jacob Abraham v. Union of India for the proposition that successive representations do not create a fresh cause of action; however, the Tribunal did not rely on those authorities in its determination.

The Tribunal accepted that the impugned orders dated 23 April 2013 and 15 September 2014 predated the 2017 application, but considered the applicant’s financial distress and the case’s procedural history sufficient to condone the delay.

On the merits, it noted that the applicant had received 47 points and that the Committee’s last recommended candidate had received 69.

Rather than determining whether the original scoring was erroneous, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s claim had been considered only twice and that the 2023 circular warranted consideration on a third occasion by the Circle Relaxation Committee.

It allowed the Original Application, quashed the orders dated 23 April 2013 and 15 September 2014, and directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim at the next Circle Relaxation Committee meeting in accordance with the 20 July 2023 circular, preferably within six months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.