Rejection of compassionate appointment requires reconsideration under revised guidelines by competent authority.

The applicant's father, J. Devarajan, a GDS BPM, died on March 2, 2020, due to illness, leaving behind his wife and two sons, including the applicant

The applicant's mother made representations on July 27, 2022, and March 30, 2023, for GDS appointment for the applicant under compassionate grounds

The initial request was rejected on March 21, 2022, on the grounds that the family was not in an indigent condition

Subsequently, after the issuance of Office Memorandum dated June 6, 2022, regarding the review of compassionate engagement, the applicant's mother again requested a review on July 27, 2022

This request was rejected by the 3rd respondent on November 18/21, 2022, stating no provision to reopen the case

The applicant again made a representation on July 31, 2025, which was rejected on August 13, 2025, stating the case had already been considered and not approved

The applicant filed the OA seeking to set aside these rejection orders and for a direction to appoint him as GDS

Whether the rejection of the applicant's request for compassionate appointment by orders dated March 21, 2022, November 18/21, 2022, and August 13, 2025, was unsustainable in law and overlooked the family's financial hardship

Whether the applicant's case for compassionate appointment should be reconsidered in light of the Office Memorandum dated June 6, 2022

The court primarily applied the principles governing compassionate appointments for dependents of deceased Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS)

It specifically referred to the Directorate Memo No. 17.01.2017-GDS dated May 30, 2017, which guided the initial rejection criteria based on the family's indigent condition

Crucially, the court applied the Office Memorandum dated June 6, 2022, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Post (GDS Section), titled "Review of the Scheme for engagement of the dependent of a deceased Gramin Dak Sevak on Compassionate Grounds"

This OM allowed for representations against rejections prior to its issuance, with the Director General Postal Services designated as the Competent Authority for final decisions on such review cases

The OM also outlined the process for submitting representations and required forwarding such cases to the Directorate

The court found that the initial rejection of the applicant's compassionate appointment request on March 21, 2022, was based on the "non-indigent condition" of the family, as per the older guidelines

However, the subsequent rejections dated November 18/21, 2022, and August 13, 2025, failed to consider the significant change introduced by the Office Memorandum dated June 6, 2022

This OM explicitly provided an opportunity for dependents to submit representations against rejections on compassionate grounds, directing that such cases be placed before the Director General Postal Services for reconsideration, especially those rejected prior to June 6, 2022

The court observed that the applicant's case was never placed before the competent authority (Director General Postal Services) for reconsideration under the revised guidelines, despite the mother's representation for review

The respondents' actions amounted to a failure to properly appreciate the revised scheme and the fundamental objective of compassionate appointment to alleviate financial hardship

In the interest of justice and in view of the Office Memorandum dated June 6, 2022, the court set aside these orders

The matter was remitted to the respondents with a direction to place the applicant’s case before the competent authority (Director General Postal Services) for reconsideration in accordance with extant rules and guidelines, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage