GDS Postmaster’s Son Loses Compassionate-Job Bid After CAT Cites RD-Fraud Involvement During His 11 Years As Substitute

The applicant’s father, a GDS Branch Postmaster, died in service in 2006.

The applicant was thereafter permitted to work as a substitute at the vacant post and sought compassionate engagement.

His claim was rejected in 2012 for insufficient merit points.

In earlier proceedings, the Tribunal directed reconsideration under revised criteria; the applicant’s claim was again rejected in 2017, and a further Tribunal order directed reconsideration under the revised norms and consideration against an existing vacancy.

In 2020, the Committee on Compassionate Engagement declined to recommend him, recording that he had been involved in recurring-deposit (RD) fraud while working as a substitute.

The applicant challenged that decision, arguing that the allegation was unsupported, stigmatic, and made without notice or a departmental inquiry.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment, intended to relieve a family from immediate financial hardship; it is not a vested right and remains subject to the applicable scheme and its conditions.

The Tribunal relied on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, JT 1994 (3) SC 525, for the principle that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right at any time; Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394, for the rule that such appointment must comply with the governing rules and guidelines; and the cited decisions concerning the limited scope of compassionate appointment and the relevance of delay.

The Tribunal also treated good character and antecedents as essential considerations for appointment.

No specific statutory provision or service rule governing the alleged fraud is identified in the order.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had worked only as a substitute and that no employer–employee relationship existed between him and the Department that would permit departmental action against him.

However, the respondents reported that verification disclosed non-credit of deposits in nine RD accounts, and that the applicant repaid the amount after the irregularities were brought to his attention.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s denial of some transactions but concluded that repayment, which it viewed as acceptance of his lapses, and the reported misconduct undermined his suitability for compassionate engagement.

It therefore held that the prior directions to reconsider his claim did not require the respondents to recommend or appoint him despite the misconduct findings.

The OA was dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed, with no order as to costs.