Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Mayank Devam Srivastava vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2020
, | CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/ 2019 t , 4 NG Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Original Application No. 332/00044/2019 Order reserved on : 31.01.2020 Order pronounced on: ! CB Marek, Z0L0 Hon'ble Mr. Devendra Chaudhry, Member-A. Mayank Devam Srivastava aged about 32 years son of Sri Jagdamba Prasad Srivastava Resident of Village & Post- Ainwa_ District- Ambedkar Nagar. z bedeeeens Applicant. By Advocate: Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava. Vs 1. Union of India through its secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication and I.T. Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Assistant Director, (G.D.S./ P.C.C.) Ministry of Communication and I.T. Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 3. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow. 4. Assistant Postal Master General/ the then Chairman, Circle Relaxation committee, Office of the Chief Post Master General, Lucknow. 5. Assistant Director (Recruitment) Office of Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow. 6. Senior Superintendent of Post Services, Faizabad Division, District- Faizabad (Now District- Ayodhya). ...Respondents By Advocate: Sri Shatrohan Lal. ORDER
Delivered by:
Hon'ble Mr. Devendra Chaudhry, Member-A. The current Original Application (OA) is the second round of litigation following the order of this Tribunal dated 05.04.2018. In this OA, the order dated 13.09.2018/07.09.2018 has been challenged ki, Page 1 of 12 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/ 2019 whereby the case of the Applicant for grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) has been rejected.
2. By way of relief, the Applicant has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 13.09.2018/07.09.2018 and consideration of his case for compassionate appointment to post of GDS BPM.
3. In brief, the Applicant has submitted that he had filed an Original Application No. 580 of 2016 in this Tribunal, Mayak Devam Srivastava vs. Union of India and others in which, this T ribunal vide order dated 05.04.2018 directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant again taking into consideration DOP&T Circular dated 26.07.2012. However, while doing so, the respondents have rejected
-the case of the Applicant through the impugned orders by taking recourse of circular No. 17-17/2010-GDS dated 10.06.2016 wherein, it is observed that cases of compassionate appointment already settled before 17.01.2015 need not be reopened and since the case of the applicant is pending since 23.10.2013 when the applicant made a representation for consideration: of his case for compassionate appointment on account of the demise of his mother Smt Kanti Devi on 04.08.2013 while being posted as Branch Post Master in District Ambedkar Nagar, therefore it cannot now be reopened and therefore the applicant's case for compassionate appointment is rejected. It is further submitted that the applicant's case was first rejected in the CRC meeting of 24/25.04.2014 as he had scored 42 marks against the qualifying level of 50 marks. That, the applicant thereafter represented to the concerned authority vide his representation dated 20.08.2014 and after re-examination, S2 marks were allocated to the applicant vide letter dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure -8), That, however, objections were raised to the said allocation vide letter dated 08.07.2015 and the marking was again re-evaluated and on re-evaluation, the applicant was given 37 marks. That, this downward revision from 52 marks is arbitrary and meant to disregard the order of this Tribunal dated 05.04.2018. Also, the letter No. 17-1/2017 dated 30.05.2017 by which cases already settled before 17.12.2017 need not be reopened (letter No. PFA-141/ Anukamppa dated 13.09.2018: Annexure-1 read with Page 2 of 12 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/2019 letter No. 17-17/2010-GDS dt 10.06.2016: Annexure-4) is contrary to the DoPT circular of 96.07.2012. Therefore the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment is illegally rejected on three grounds namely: (i) his case has not been considered on merits as directed by this Tribunal vide order dt.05.04.2018, (ii) the downward evaluation from 52 marks to 37 marks is arbitrary and against the criteria laid down and finally (iii) the cut-off date of 17.12.2015 is arbitrary and contrary to the DoPT circular of 26.07.2012. Hence the impugned . order dated 13.09.2018/07.09.2018 has been illegally passed and therefore liable to be struck down; hence, the OA.
4. Per contra, the Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit, in which it is submitted that, (i) while the applicant is admittedly one of the three sons of the deceased employee of Late Smt. Kanti Devi who
- was GDS BPM, District Ambedkar Nagar and demised on 04.08.2013 leaving behind her husband and three sons of which the Applicant is one of the son, (ii) the case of the applicant was considered in the CRC meeting held on 24/ 25.04.2014 based on the application dated 25.10.2013 but (iii) could not be approved as per marking criteria set by the circular of Postal Directorate, New Delhi vide dated 14.12.2010 and 09.03.2012, whereby, (iv) the applicant got 42 marks instead of the required 50 marks being the cut-off based on marks obtained by other competing candidates. That, thereupon the directions were issued to the Respondent no. 6 by Respondent no. 5 vide 07.05.2014 to inform the Applicant of the result of the meeting of the CRC and same was informed to the Applicant by Respondent no. 6 vide letter dated 08.05.2014. That, the case of the Applicant was reexamined based on his representation dated 20.08.2014 against allocation of 42 marks but on re-evaluation the applicant could be awarded only 37 marks (letter dated 08.07.2015 Annexure -9 filed by the Applicant himself) and before the case of the applicant with whatever marks could be re-considered for the next CRC meeting, a letter dated 10.06.2016 was received from the Office of Director General, Posts, New Delhi directing that cases already settled prior to 17.12.2015 need not be reopened. Thereupon, the Applicant was informed of the same vide letter dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure- CR-8). That, meanwhile, the : Applicant had approached this Tribunal which vide order dated Page 3 of 12 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/ 2019 05.04.2018 in the OA 580 of 2016 directed for re-examination of the case of the Applicant on merits in light of DOP&T circular dated 26.07.2012. That, the matter was again examined on merits by the CRC, vide meeting dated 09 /10/11% August, 2018 but the case of the Applicant could not be approved in light of limitation imposed by the Directorate letter No. 17-1/2017-GDS dated 30.05.2017 directing not to reopen cases which have been settled before 17.12.2015 and since the case of the applicant had already been settled vide CRC meeting of 24/25.04.2014, hence it was barred from further opening up and has been therefore rejected vide the impugned orders which have been passed in strict compliance of the issued circular dt 30.05.2017. Hence the impugned orders are not arbitrary or illegal and are also issued in compliance of the order of this Tribunal for reexamination of the case of the applicant on merits.
6. The key issue which falls for consideration is whether, the impugned orders are in violation of the applicable rules and criteria set for compassionate appointment to a Class -III post in the Postal Department being sought by the applicant and importantly whether applicant can be considered for compassionate appointment to a Class-III post even while being a dependent of a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master and not a full time regular employee of the Postal department. Further that this has to be seen in light of the Directorate letter No. 17-1/2017-GDS dated 30.05.2017 directing not to reopen cases for compassionate appointment which have been settled before | 17.12.2015 in context of the DOPT circular of 26.07.2012 qua mo appointment to a Class-III post.
7. Inorder to examine the issue, it would be just and proper to first ( of all reproduce the operative portion of the order of this Tribunal which is reproduced herein below:
"7. Hence, in view of the discussion made herein above, the impugned order is set aside. The Respondents are directed to reconsider the-claim of the applicant after. reassessment of penurious condition of the family of the deceased employee in accordance with law and will decide the claim of the applicant the next meeting of the CRC or within six months whichever is earlier."
f\ Page 4 of 12 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/ 2019 From the above, it is clear that the Respondents were bound to consider the case of the Applicant on merit in light of the circular dated 26.07.2012 of the DoP&T. Now let us examine the DoPT | circular of 26.07.2012. Relevant abstracts are reproduced herein below:
F.No.14014/3/2011-Estt. (D) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) i. North Block, New Delhi ! Dated the 26th July, 2012 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- Review of three years time limit for making compassionate appointment.
. The primary objective of scheme for compassionate appointment circulated vide O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998 is to provide immediate assistance to relieve the dependent family of the deceased or medically retired Government servant from financial destitution t.e. penurious condition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2011 in Civil | Appeal No. 2206 of 2006 filed by Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu has observed that "an appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the j financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 86 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, tt is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind".
2. This Department's O.M. No. 14014/6/ 1994-Estt. (D) dated 09.10.1998 | provided that Ministries/ Departments can consider requests for compassionate appointment even where the death or retirement on medical grounds of a Government servant took place long back, say five years or so. While considering such belated requests it was, however, to be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the Government servant in order to relieve it from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision to make appointment on compassionate grounds in such cases was to be taken only at the level of the Secretary of the Department/ Ministry concerned.
3. Subsequently vide this Department's O.M. No. 14014/19/2002-Estt. (D) dated 5th May, 2003 a time limit of three years time was prescribed for considering cases of compassionate appointment. Keeping in view the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad judgment dated 07.05.2010 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010, the issue has been re-examined in consultation with Ministry of Law. It has been decided to withdraw the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 05.05.2003.
4. The cases of compassionate appointment may be regulated in terms of instructions issued vide O.M. dated 09.10.1998 as amended from time to time.
\ Page 5 of 12 Po oe rE er MMMM PESTA HEME Hy CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/ 2019 The onus of examining the penurious condition of the dependent family will rest with the authority making compassionate appointment, (Mukta Goel) Director (E-1) Tel. No. 2309 2479 To All Ministries/ Departments of the Government of India.
| As may be seen, the DoPT circular lays down that (i) it has been / decided to withdraw the instructions contained in the OM dt. 05.05.2003 which imposed the limit of three years' time for considering cases of compassionate appointment and _ that compassionate appointment cases may accordingly be regulated in terms of instructions issued vide OM dated 09.10.1998 as amended from time to time without the prescribed limit of three years, and
- finally that (iii) the onus of examining the penurious condition of the dependent family will rest with the authority making compassionate | appointment.
8, It would also be just and proper to reproduce the relevant abstracts of letters dated 10.06.2016, 01.08.2016, and 13.09.2018.
The same are reproduced herein below:
10.06.2016 Government of India Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Posts Establishment Division (GDS Section) Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 Dated: 10.06.2016 17-17/2010-GDS CORRIGENDM All Heads of Postal Circles Subject: Scheme for engagement of a dependent of decease GDS on compassionate grounds- review of existing point based system of assessing indigence.
Attention of all concerned is invited to this Directorate letter of even no, dated 17.12.2015 on the above subject.
2. In this connection, point 5 may be read as given below:
(5) "the revised provisions will be given effect from the date of issue of these instructions in respect of those cases considered in CRCs held after Page 6 of 12 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/ 2019 17.12.2015. Cases already settled before 17.12.2015 need not strictly be reopened."
3. All other content of the order holds good.
(R.L. Patel) Assistant Director General (GDS/ PCC) 01.08.2016 aRa sre fart area dp ue AY GAR SU. URAVSc, TRTATH--226001 Gar #, sl qag @ay shard Ta Mo are edt yagd oisivs sia VA SSH TTT Purse AVS for 224145 .
are -- adi /VA-8 / 181 / 2013 / 10 feATH 01.08.2016 fag : st ade tay saree ga wo Gre edt youd oiive shies, rar HISAR, PUTAS SH G Ts we aya amen ox frgfea eg wear val wed : oroer uftdes festa 215-2016 Aeleg, ae ara areme a at ame oe yar wea UY walla wad wa & aed 4 gfe foo orn & fe var Aer ar oRavscha Pree afaft at gan festa 24 ve 25-4-2014 BD WA va Ta a va GRax a sate frr a oe a S oer orpafed wel far war | aap «femmes b ST Ge 17-17/2010-aHrewa fea 10-6--2016 & ares 4 aracet we fea ar alg aitferg ae 21 way 80 vao Ho fast wean freee weit 13.09.2018 ade sre fears arate var ache SHER Hurae Asa, Parare--224001 aa 4, tt qin eq sfrarda Ga wre were Aare TA ¢ URe-- Waa dexite-- erst TASHTTR Gare ~ WEY 141/ ayaa puree feat 13.09.2018 farsa: lo =rarera Wlovodio tH FB atlovo Wo-- 580/2016, +H Wap eay add eH ARG Ga a avy a aRa facta feaia 05.04.2018 b Aq aH Wey A] Sed: = ager Geardas featfea 10.05.2018 Ao "Marea Mlovocio ASTH BH slovo Wo--- 580/2016, a qap tay sfarda sara wRa wa a aw A ofa facta festa 05.04. 2018 Tea soar wearday feat 10.05.2018 HY DREAREY Waa Fares uRea cease vd wera freee vdt arate de dreaci, SORORITY TEETER wey ardergy Be ANN Fa sa Page 7 of 12 OA No. 332/00044/2019 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH
2. waa wife err wt yer oRavsota ferret waft (Circle Relaxation Committee) @} feta 09.08.2018, 10.08. 2018 Vd 11.08.2018 HT WIT ge tom A vega fear war va wosRowio ant fra fea aa) dom A we wafer @ wa to 17-1 /2017-aSIGa_ fester 30.05.2017 9 ara wRfad frat fra F anata ware fra fear mar va ara Prato at frafeftaa feuoh a ore uN arqaifed wel farar wa "As per Directorate letter no. 17-1/2017-GDS dated 30.05.2017, the cases which have already been settled will not be reopened"
3. were free adt arafera we deacil, vooo ufavea, Aa OG TA Gen wi /va-s/181/2013/10 fata 07.09.2018 HH uf worms 2 | WaX seller STpex Wurala AVS, Hotrare--2241001 An examination of the above reveals that surely the impugned order dated 13.09.2018 has nowhere a whisper of the consideration of the case of the Applicant on merits and has only taken support of the circular no. 17-1/2017-GDS dated 30.05.2017. In this context, there seems to be need for reassessment of the compassionate appointment case on merits given the changing marks. On doing so we find that admittedly applicant obtained 42 marks in the first evaluation and the case could not pass muster as the merit cut-off was 50 marks in the CRC meeting held on 24/25.04.2015. Secondly, while the first re- evaluation was pegged at 52 marks by the subordinate authority but the re-examination of this re-evaluation as directed by the competent authority resulted in the applicant obtaining 37 marks. So even if we give the benefit of reconsideration of the case of the applicant without the boundary of 17.12.2015, we find that the applicant fails to qualify the cut-off of 50 marks set in that CRC of 2015 on the basis of latest marks obtained as per records.
9. Thirdly, now if we examine the marking itself, we find that in the marking of 52 marks, a total of 10 marks was given in addition to the 42 marks given earlier on assessment of no land and house of the applicant. But the same 52 marks were brought down to 37 on account of the undenied fact that the applicant family did have land - viz 0.526 ares or more (CR-4, para-5 in letter dated 20.08.2014 from applicant to CPMG, Lucknow) and a pucca house as part of assets.
Therefore these have to be accounted for and marks allocated accordingly. t CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/ 2019
10. Finally, it cannot be said that, the 30.05.2017 circular issued after the circular dated 26.07.2012 of the DoP&T overrides it. None of the parties have advanced adequate proof as to this aspect and in light thereof, the latest applicable circular.
11. It would also be pertinent while on the subject of law recapitulate the judgement and order of the Hon Apex Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr v Shashi Kumar (2019) 1 | ere (L8sS) 542 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has vide its judgment dated 16.01.2019 held that the terms of policy qua the receipt of various benefits received by the family were required to be considered in the matter of compassionate appointment. Relevant abstracts of this judgment are reproduced below for ready use:
Ween The matter has been considered carefully and it is noticed that specific guidelines with respect to what would amount to "indigent circumstances" will not be possible or practicable. "Indigent circumstances" of ' a family are to be seen with specific reference to the assets ie. immoveable a and moveable property left behind by the deceased income from various sources i.e, assets, houses, pension, savings resulting to income employment status and number of employees within the extended family etc. as also liabilities i.e. number of dependents specially unmarried daughters aged parents etc. left behind by the deceased, some consideration towards the particular standard of life that the family of the deceased might be used to during the life time of the government employee etc. These are vital parameters that have to be kept in mind before any decision is arrived at regarding admissibility of employment to the ward/ dependent of the deceased employee. As the above would show the question of "indigent circumstances", therefore has to be decided in each individual case after obtaining detailed information about all the relevant aspects mentioned, so that employment on compassionate grounds is not given as matter of routine. While every effort should be made to provide suitable employment. in all deserving cases. It should always be kept in mind that employment on compassionate ground can not be claimed as a matter of right..."
"....While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the Policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependant member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfill the terms of the Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment..."
"...Among them, the policy stipulates that family pension and death gratuity are required to be taken into account in assessing the financial Page 9 of 12 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/ 2019 circumstances of the family. The Policy does not preclude the dependants of a deceased employee from being considered for compassionate appointment merely because they are in receipt of family pension. What the Policy mandates is that the receipt of family pension should be taken into account in considering whether the family has been left in indigent circumstances requiring immediate means of subsistence. The receipt of family pension is, therefore, one of the considerations which is to be taken into account..."
High Court was in error in issuing a mandamus to the Government to disregard its Policy. Such direction could not have been issued by the High Court....."
«... Jt is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v, State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract:
"2. ..AS a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies."
One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. -The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that. but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family..."
Seuss The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased emplayee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned. Specifically in the context of considering the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased employee, several judgments of this Court have elaborated on the principles to be followed...."
taking account of the terminal benefits, investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the Bank. The view of this Court finds expression in the following extract:
"la, The competent authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of the en.ployee who died in harness are OA No. 332/00044/2019 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and the 'investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the Bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant Bank in fact mandates the authority to take those factors into consideration. The authority also did not commit any error in taking into consideration the income of the family from other sources viz, the agricultural land." (emphasis supplied) In the view of this Court, the only issue to be considered was whether the claim for compassionate appointment had been considered in accordance with the Scheme. The income of the family from all sources was required to be taken into consideration according to the Scheme. This having been ignored by the High Court, the appeal filed by the Bank was allowed..."
"...dIn all the matters of compassionate appointment it must be noticed that it is basically a way out for the family which is financially in difficulties on account of the death of the bread-earner. It is not an avenue for a reqular employment as such. This is in fact an exception to the provisions under Article 16 of the Constitution. That being so, if an employer points out that the financial arrangement made for the family subsequent to the death of the employee is adequate, the members of the family cannot insist that one of them ought to be provided a comparable appointment..."
"...For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified, based on the decision in Govind Prakash Verma (supra) in issuing a direction to the State to act in a manner contrary to the express terms of the Scheme which require that the family pension received by the dependants of the deceased employee be taken into account...."
"....fti) The direction issued by the High Court to the appellants to desist from taking into account the family pension and other terminal benefits is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside..."
12. The 16.01.2019 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shashi Kumar (supra) has been cited again in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh v Sanjay Kumar vide judgment 12.03.2019 and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Hirda Ram vide judgment dated 18.12.2019.
In this context there is also an issue of DOPT circulars applying to Government Servants under the Union of India/ Government of India as compared to GDS who are not a full time employees of the Government of India. That they work part time is written unambiguously in Rule-3A (i) and that they are outside the Civil Service of the Union is written in Rule -3A(v), while Rule 3A(vi) states that a Sevak shall not claim to be at par with the Central Government employees as per the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011 which are applicable to the applicant also. This particular issue has not been fully examined in the citations of Page 11 of 12 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH OA No. 332/00044/ 2019 judgments of even this Tribunal/other coordinate Benches qua the GDS.
13. Therefore, in the interest of justice without further adjudication of the point of inter se overriding power between the later issued Postal Directorate Circular of 30.05.2017 and earlier issued DoP&T Circular dated 26.07.2012, as well as the disputed marking, the Respondents are directed to -
i. re-examine the case of the applicant as per latest applicable rules and regulations for compassionate appointment to. the post of GDS BPM for a dependent of a demised GDS BPM as also in light of the competing applicability of latest circulars interalia the circular(s) of the Postal Directorate limiting examination of cases of compassionate appointment prior to ° 17.12.2015 vis-a-vis the DoPT circular of 26.07.2012; and ii. re-examine the correctness of the marks allocated for consideration of compassionate appointment.
The respondent competent authority is accordingly directed to pass fresh orders after examining both the above points within three weeks of the receipt of this order. The impugned order dated 13.09.2018/07.09.2018 stand quashed in light of above. Let a copy of this order be served by the Registry on the Respondent-1-Secretary Post, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government appropriate action. No costs.
(Devendra Chaudhry) Member (A) JNS Page 12 of 12