Failure to advise disabled employees of statutory protections before medical retirement necessitates consideration for compassionate appointment.

The applicant, a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) employee in the Department of Posts, suffered a severe paralytic stroke on May 13, 2021, resulting in permanent physical disability and loss of speech

On December 6, 2021, citing his incapacity, he applied for Voluntary Retirement (VRS) on medical grounds and explicitly requested guidance on the procedure

A Medical Board subsequently declared him 100% permanently incapacitated

He was relieved from service on February 15, 2022, under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

Following his retirement, the applicant applied for the compassionate appointment of his son on June 6, 2022, citing extreme penury

The respondents rejected the application and subsequent appeals through four impugned orders (dated 2023–2025), primarily relying on a Postal Directorate clarification dated November 10, 2023, which stated that compassionate appointment cases for officials retired on medical invalidation after May 19, 2015, could not be considered in light of DoPT OMs regarding the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

1. Whether the respondents failed in their statutory duty to advise the disabled applicant of his right to continue in service in a supernumerary post before accepting his VRS

2. Whether the rejection of the applicant's son's request for compassionate appointment was arbitrary and contrary to the "Scheme for Compassionate Appointment"

The court primarily applied Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and its successor, Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandate that no establishment shall dispense with an employee who acquires a disability during service; instead, they must be shifted to another post or kept on a supernumerary post with the same pay and benefits

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Bhagwan Dass Anr v. Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 SCC 579, which established that superior officers have a duty to explain legal rights to disabled employees unaware of such protections

Furthermore, the court referred to DoPT OMs dated May 19, 2015, and September 7, 2020, which operationalize these statutory protections, and the "Scheme for Compassionate Appointment" (updated August 2, 2022), which includes dependents of employees retired under Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules within its ambit

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents committed a procedural and legal error by failing to provide the "guidance" the applicant specifically requested in his VRS letter

Despite the clear mandate in the Bhagwan Dass case and subsequent DoPT OMs, the relieving order was silent on the option for the applicant to continue in service on a supernumerary post

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that no lower post was available, noting that Section 20(4) of the RPWD Act, 2016, requires the creation of a supernumerary post regardless of functional capacity if no other post exists

Regarding the compassionate appointment, the Tribunal found the respondents' reliance on a 2023 "internal clarification" to bar cases after 2015 was arbitrary, as the applicant's retirement under Rule 38 squarely qualified him for the scheme as per the DoPT guidelines updated in 2022

The Tribunal concluded that since the respondents failed to protect the applicant's livelihood through the RPWD Act, they could not then deny the alternative relief of compassionate appointment based on restrictive and misinterpreted internal circulars

It held that the respondents' failure to comply with the RPWD Act and relevant DoPT OMs caused irreversible damage to the applicant's rights

The Tribunal issued a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the prayer for the appointment of the applicant's son on compassionate grounds in the next Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) meeting

The consideration must be based on the "Cut-off date" (the date of retirement on medical grounds) as prescribed in the Scheme, and the decision must be communicated via a detailed speaking order

No costs were awarded