Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Krishna Kumar Mishra vs Department Of Posts on 11 May, 2026
(Reserved on 16.04.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 11th day of May, 2026
Original Application No.158 of 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Krishna Kumar Mishra, a/a 36 years, S/o Late Daya Shanker, R/o Vill
Jamuhi, Post Roza Distt. Shahjahanpur
....Applicant
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
By Advocate: Shri Ravi Shankar Tiwari
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication and
LT, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
2. Post Master General Bareilly Zone, Bareilly
3. Superintendent of RMS Bareilly Division, Bareilly
... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi
ORDER
Heard Shri Ravi Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
2. This Original Application is filed by the applicants, who are 12 in numbers, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
8. (i) To quash the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 with directing the Respondent to provide service to the applicant according to dying-in-Harness rule.
(ii) To pass any such/ other order as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Issue award cost in favour of applicant.
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in Original Application is that the father of the applicant namely, Late Daya Shankar, while working as "Mail man" at Shajahanpurand, died in harness on 07.08.2018. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant made an application for appointment on compassionate ground in favour of her son i.e. applicant before the Respondent-5. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid application, she also died on 29.10.2018. Thereafter, the applicant given reminders on 08.07.2021 and 23.01.2023 for compassionate appointment, but no heed was paid. Hence, the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal, by way of Original Application No. 264 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order 13.03.2024 with direction to the respondents to decide the applicant‟s application dated 08.07.2021, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA accordance with law.
3.1 In view thereof, the Respondent-2 passed the order dated 22.07.2024, by which the claim of the applicant was rejected. The order dated 22.07.2024 is impugned in this original application.
4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 09.09.2025, wherein it has been stated that applicant‟ father Late Daya Shankar (Ex- Mail Man, RMS „BL‟ Division, Shajahanpur), joined the Department on 26.10.1990 as Mail Man(MTS) in Shahjahanpur RMS and expired during service on 07.08.2018. The respondent received an application dated 01.09.2018 from the applicant‟ mother seeking compassionate appointment of his son. Thereafter, the case of the applicant was considered by the respondents, but the case of the applicant was rejected as the Board from which the applicant has passed the exam was not recognized, which was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 30.06.2021 itself. However, the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal by O.A. No.264/2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.03.2024 and in compliance of the said order, the respondents passed the reasoned and speaking order dated 22.07.2024. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, original application is liable to be dismissed.
Page 2 of 5
5. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed by the applicants on 28.11.2025, reiterated the averments as made in original application.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalay Vrindavan, Mathura up to the year, 2008 is valid as held by full bench of Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in case of Dhanpal and Others v. State of U.P. The applicant passed class 10 in 2007 i.e. prior to 2008. The applicant PUNIT KUMAR having a minimum Qualification regarding the post of Main Man of R.M.S MISHRA which is 12th pass from recognized Board and applicant having Qualification 12th passed from U.P. Board in 2010. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 is against the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the present Original Application is not maintainable, as the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 was issued by the Superintendent, RMS „BL‟ Division, Bareilly in compliance with the direction of this Tribunal dated 13.03.20248 passed in OA No. 264/2024. The documents submitted by the applicant before Assistant Superintendent, RMS BL Division, Bareilly, were forwarded to Respondent No.3 for onward submission to the Regional Office and the Circle Relaxation Committee(CRC) for verification. Circle Office, Lucknow, vide letter No. Bharti/M-5/26/2019/8 dated 23.06.2021, informed that the Board from which the applicant passed the High School examination was not recognized, and hence his case for compassionate appointment was rejected. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for both the parties and perused the entire record.
9. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the educational qualification possessed by the applicant, particularly the Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by Gurukul Page 3 of 5 Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, could be treated as a valid qualification equivalent to High School conducted by the recognized Board.
10. The undisputed facts reveal that the father of the applicant, Late Shridhar Shankar, while working as Mail Man in the RMS Department at Saharanpur died in harness on 07.08.2018. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant submitted a representation dated 01.09.2018 before the competent authority seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in PUNIT KUMAR favour of the applicant. The case of the applicant for compassionate MISHRA appointment was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 22.07.2024. For proper appreciation of the controversy involved, the relevant clause of impugned order is quoted as under:-
अनुकम्ऩा ननमुक्ति की प्रक्रिमा भें आऩके द्वाया प्रस्िुि दस्िावेजों को ऩरयभंडरीम कामाारम प्रेषषि क्रकमा गमा क्जसके उऩयान्ि ऩरयभंडरीम कामाारम द्वाया अवगि कयामा गमा क्रक आऩकी ननमुक्ति इस कायण से नहीं हो सकी तमोक्रक आऩने कऺा-10 की ऩयीऺा क्जस फोडा से ऩास की है उस फोडा की ऩहचान नहीं हो सकी (फोडा भान्म नहीं है ) क्जस कायण सी. आय. सी. ने आऩकी ननमुक्ति यद्द कय दी एवं आऩका अभ्मावेदन ददनांक 08.07.2021 जो ऩूवा भें इस कामाारम भें अप्राप्ि था एवं श्री चिऩाणण वात्सामन सयकायी अधधवतिा द्वाया ददनांक 08.04.2024 को भाननीम पैट इराहाफाद के ददनांक 13.03.2024 के आदे श के साथ प्रेषषि क्रकमा गमा है . ददनांक 08.04.2024 को इस कामाारम भें प्राप्ि हुआ है , चुक्रक आऩकी ननमुक्ति भी. आय. गी के द्वाया यद्द की जा चुकी है , अिः आऩके अभ्मावेदन 08.07.2021 को ऩरयभंडरीम कामाारम के ऩत्र संख्मा- बिी/एभ-5/26/2019/8 रखनऊ ददनांक 23.06.2021 एवं सी. आय. सी. के ननणाम को ध्मान भें यख कय इस आदे श के साथ ननऩटामा जािा है क्रक आऩ (श्री कृष्ण कुभाय मभश्रा) भाननीम कैट इराहाफाद के ददनांक 13.03.2024 के आदे श के अनुऩारन भें अनुकम्ऩा ननमुक्ति के मरए मोग्म नहीं है ।
11. From perusal of the impugned order dated 22.07.2024, it appears that the claim of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents solely on the ground that the High School certificate possessed by the applicant was issued by a Board which was not recognized.
However, similar issue fell for consideration before the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dhanpal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2013(8) ADJ 723 as well as in case of Akanksha Gautam v State of U.P. and Others reported in 2012(6) ADJ 10, the High Court held that the certificates issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan up to the year 2008 are valid and Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by Gurukul Page 4 of 5 Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, is treated as a valid qualification equivalent to High School conducted by the recognized Board.
12. In the present case, the applicant passed the said examination in the year 2007, which falls within the period recognized by the aforesaid judgment. The respondents have failed to consider the applicability of the said binding precedent while passing the impugned order. Further, it is also evident from the record that the applicant has passed the Intermediate PUNIT KUMAR (12th) examination from the U.P. Board in the year 2010, which is a MISHRA recognized Board. Therefore, the applicant fulfills the minimum educational qualification required for the post in question. The respondents, while rejecting the claim, have not considered this relevant aspect of the matter.
13. In view of above discussions, the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 is liable to be set aside and as such, same is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. Resultantly, instant original Application stands allowed.
15. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
16. No order as to costs.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J.) PM/-
Page 5 of 5