Failure to apply directed compassionate appointment scheme renders rejection unlawful.

Late Shri Subhash Chandra Srivastava, a Postman at Head Post Office, Allahabad, died in service on December 24, 2006, leaving behind his widow (Applicant No. 1), and son (Applicant No. 2), among others.

Applicant No. 2 applied for compassionate appointment on March 25, 2007.

The application was considered by the Regional Relaxation Committee in July 2015 against vacancies for 2013-14, using the merit point system introduced by Directorate letter dated January 20, 2010.

Applicant No. 2 was awarded 53 merit points, while the last selected candidate secured 64, leading to the rejection of his claim on August 14, 2015.

The applicants filed O.A. No. 445/2019, which the Tribunal disposed of on May 3, 2019, directing respondents to provide the weightage points breakdown and to reconsider the case under the scheme existing at the time of the deceased's death.

Following this, the respondents issued orders dated June 4, 2019, and March 27, 2020, again rejecting the application based on the 2010 merit point system and the 2013-14 vacancies.

The applicants challenged these rejection orders in the present application.

Whether the respondents complied with the Tribunal's earlier direction in O.A. No. 445/2019 to reconsider the compassionate appointment case of Applicant No. 2 under the scheme prevailing at the time of the deceased employee's death?

Whether the impugned orders dated June 4, 2019, and March 27, 2020, are legally sustainable given the specific mandate of the earlier judicial direction?

The Tribunal reiterated the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment, meant to mitigate immediate hardship, and must be strictly in accordance with the governing scheme.

It emphasized that judicial mandates for reconsideration must be complied with genuinely, meaning the authority cannot dilute or bypass directions by mechanically repeating earlier reasoning.

Specifically, when a court directs reconsideration under a particular scheme, the authority must identify, examine, and apply that specific scheme, and a mere reproduction of earlier conclusions or reliance on a subsequent circular without addressing the specific mandate cannot be treated as lawful compliance.

The Tribunal found that despite its clear directions in the previous O.A. No. 445/2019, the respondents failed to reconsider the applicant's case under the scheme prevailing on December 24, 2006, the date of the deceased employee's death.

The impugned order dated June 4, 2019, explicitly stated that the reconsideration was based on the merit point system prescribed by the Directorate letter dated January 20, 2010, and considered vacancies from 2013-14, which was a subsequent scheme.

Similarly, the order dated March 27, 2020, merely reiterated the assessment made by the Circle Relaxation Committee in 2015, based on the 2010 guidelines, and did not reflect any independent reconsideration in light of the scheme applicable in 2006.

The Tribunal noted the absence of any discussion regarding the policy in force on the date of death, or whether the 2010 guidelines applied retrospectively.

Furthermore, the respondents did not address the specific objections raised by the applicants in their representations regarding alleged discrepancies in merit point allocation and financial assessment.

The Tribunal held that such an approach did not amount to faithful compliance with its earlier judicial mandate requiring effective and meaningful reconsideration under the correct scheme.

The matter is remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration of Applicant No. 2's claim, strictly in compliance with the order dated May 3, 2019.

The respondents are directed to identify and apply the scheme/policy governing compassionate appointment as on December 24, 2006, examine the family's financial condition as it existed on that date, and specifically consider the objections raised by the applicant in his representations.

This exercise must be completed within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal clarified that it has not expressed an opinion on the ultimate entitlement of Applicant No. 2.

The Original Application is disposed of.