Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Madhumathy vs Deptt Of Posts on 1 July, 2025
1 of 16 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH O.A. No.310/00601 of 2025 DATED TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A) K. Madhumathy (F/43) W/o. Late. Kanagasabapathi No.7/582-A, Pasumpon Steet A. Kokkulam, Chekkanoorani Thirumangalam Taluk Madurai District. -625514. ..........Applicant (Advocate: M/s. A. Arun ) Vs.
1. Union of India, Rep. by Chief Post Master General, Anna Salai, Chintadripet, Chennai- 600 002;
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City Central Division No.2, Sivagnanam Street, Pondy Bazaar, Parthasarathipuram, T. Nagar Chennai-600 017;
3. The Post Master General, Southern Region, Krishnapuram Colony, Vishwanathapuram Madurai District. -625014;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts,
2 of 16 Madurai Division, Tallakulam branch, Madurai District. -625002;
5. The Inspector of Posts, Sholavaram Sub Division, Vadipatti-625 218;
Madurai District;
6. MR. P. DARWIN (M/31) H/o. Late M.K. Dharani, No.7/611C, Pasumpon Street, A. Kokkulam, Chekkanoorani, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.-625514.
......Respondents (Advocate: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC) 3 of 16 ORAL OR DER (Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) This OA is filed by the applicant seeking the following relief: -
(i) To call for the entire records connected with the Impugned Order of the 5th Respondent made in No.IP/SLV/ Appt/ 2023/dlgs dated 02.12.2023 and the order of 4th Respondent in NO,BII/GDS/COMP/O1/2023/Dlgs dated @Madurai 625002 dated 21/3/2025 and quash the same; and
ii) pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. It is stated by the applicant that when her daughter Dharani was only 8 years old, she lost her husband who was working in Electricity department and she brought up her daughter as a single parent with immense difficulty on meagre monthly pension, as there was no other source of income. Applicant had to borrow private loans for the education of her daughter and till date, she is paying interest on the principal amount so borrowed.
3. The applicant further states that in 2019, her daughter participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Post Master and based on the merit, her daughter got selected. She was appointed as the Assistant Branch Post Master vide Provisional Appointment Order dated 20.08.2019 and posted at the Velichinatham Post Office, Madurai North Division. Thereafter, on 08.11.2021, applicant's daughter 4 of 16 got married to the 6th Respondent herein who is an Engineering graduate in the discipline of Electronics and Communication Engineering. At the time of marriage, the 6th Respondent was employed at Dentsu Digital Marketing, Chennai, and was drawing a decent salary. The applicant's daughter gave birth to a female child named Dheekshitha on 06.08.2022.
4. The applicant further states that unfortunately in February 2023, the applicant's daughter met with a road accident and suffered multiple injuries and was treated for a compound fracture in her leg. Subsequent to the said accident, the applicant's daughter's health became worse. It was the applicant who was taking care of her daughter after the accident and her daughter was under the applicant's care in her house. The applicant's daughter's matrimonial home was just two houses away from her parental home. In view of the strain in the matrimonial relationship, the applicant's daughter was keeping away from her matrimonial home. Further, the applicant came to know from her daughter that the 6 th Respondent and her in-laws, ill-treated her. Thus, the applicant's daughter was facing untold sufferings.
5. The applicant states that because of the above acts of the 6 th Respondent and his family, the applicant's daughter was stressed and was also treated for depression. While so, on 13.03.2023, while the applicant's daughter was residing in her matrimonial home, she died in an unnatural way. Since the death of the applicant's daughter was under highly suspicious circumstances, the applicant lodged a 5 of 16 complaint with the Checkanurani Police Station, Madurai. Though applicant insisted for conducting autopsy, the 6th Respondent intervened and objected to the same. This conduct of the 6th Respondent made the applicant even more suspicious about the circumstances of death of her daughter. Due to the influence of the 6 th Respondent, the police did not conduct any serious enquiry regarding the complaint made by the applicant.
6. The applicant states that immediately after the demise of her daughter and before the applicant could overcome the loss suffered by her, the 6 th Respondent forcibly took away the child from the applicant's custody. Further, the 6 th Respondent obtained a Legal Heir Certificate behind her back deliberately suppressing her in the said certificate. As per G. O. Ms. No. 478, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the applicant being the mother of her deceased daughter, she is also a legal heir of the deceased.
7. The applicant states that she has reliably learnt that after obtaining Legal Heir Certificate without including the name of the applicant, the 6 th Respondent made an application to the 1st Respondent herein to consider his candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds by deliberately and willfully suppressing the material fact that he was working in a private multinational company drawing a high and attractive salary. As the 6th Respondent was earning a monthly income of more than Rs.75,000/-, the said application of 6 th Respondent for appointment on compassionate 6 of 16 grounds suffered from serious factual and legal infirmities which negated the very purpose and object of providing appointment on compassionate grounds.
8. The applicant states that in the above circumstances, under the mistaken impression that the applicant is also entitled to seek compassionate appointment on the death of her daughter, she made a detailed representation dated 31.07.2023 to the Respondents 1 to 5 seeking appointment on compassionate ground to her and thereby requested the Respondents 1 to 5 to desist from processing the application, if any, submitted by the 6th Respondent seeking compassionate appointment. However, no response was received from the Respondents 1 to 5. While so, she filed an application dated 31.07.2023 under RTI Act to know the status of and process for employment under compassionate grounds and the applicant received a reply dated 06.11.2023 from the 4th Respondent stating that the competent authority had appointed the 6th Respondent on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, she has obtained the copy of the order of provisional engagement in No.IP/SLV/Appt/2023/digs dated 02.12.2023 of the 6th Respondent through RTI.
9. The applicant states that she made another RTI application dated 07.08.2024 in order to obtain information as to what information is furnished by the 6 th Respondent to secure the employment on the compassionate grounds. In response to the same, the applicant received a reply dated 27.08.2024. From the said reply, the applicant learnt that the 6th Respondent had not submitted any document to prove that he was in 7 of 16 indigent circumstances following the death of the Government employee, which is an essential requirement to be considered for providing compassionate appointment. Similarly, the 6th Respondent had suppressed his previous employment details with malafide intention to secure compassionate appointment.
10. The applicant further submits that she made an application for inclusion of her name in the Legal Heirship Certificate as a legal heir of her deceased daughter since her name was deliberately excluded by the 6 th respondent. Thereafter, Tahsildar, Thirumangalam issued a Legal Heirship Certificate in TN-720231225634 dated 28.12.2023 to her including her name. Based on the Legal Heirship Certificate so obtained, she made a representation dated 11.02.2025 to the Respondents 1 to 5 bringing to their notice that the 6th Respondent had furnished a false, incorrect and fraudulent Legal Heirship Certificate and requested them to appoint her on compassionate grounds. However, by a communication dated 21.03.2025, the respondent rejected her request. Though the respondents were apprised of the fact of furnishing false, incorrect and fraudulent Legal Heirship Certificate by the 6 th Respondent, till date, they have not chosen to take any action to cancel his appointment.
11. The applicant submits that thereafter, she made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the Legal Heirship Certificate obtained by the 6 th Respondent suppressing the real facts. The Revenue Divisional Officer vide Order in 8 of 16 Na. Ka. No. 15/2024/B1 dated 27.12.2024, cancelled the Legal Heirship Certificate issued to 6th Respondent on the ground that the certificate was obtained by suppressing the factum of existence of the applicant and the Revenue Divisional Officer ratified the Legal Heirship Certificate issued to her.
12. The applicant further submits that in paragraph No.4 of the Order of Provisional Engagement in No. IP/SLV/Appt/2023/dlgs dated 02.12.2023 to the 6 th Respondent, the 5th Respondent had specifically made it clear that-
4. If any information or documents submitted by the candidate is found false/incorrect at a later stage, his engagement shall be terminated in accordance with Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement Rules, 2020)."
13. The applicant submits that the 6th Respondent had violated the condition contained in Para No.4 in the order of Provisional Engagement by submitting false/ incorrect and fraudulent Legal heirship Certificate to secure the job on compassionate grounds and also suppressed the fact that he was earning a handsome salary from his previous employment. He applied for the job only with an intention to secure the Government job by hook or by crook. As such, he was not under indigent circumstances which is an essential condition for seeking compassionate appointment. Therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned order.
9 of 16
14. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the 6 th Respondent, had deliberately and wilfully suppressed the fact that he was employed in Dentsu Digital Marketing, Chennai and was drawing a salary more than Rs. 75,000/- which clearly disqualifies him from applying for appointment on compassionate grounds. Since upper income ceiling limit of Rs.3 lakhs is fixed in respect of providing compassionate appointment, the 6th Respondent has deliberately not filed any document to prove his indigency. The 6 th Respondent had produced a Legal Heirship Certificate of the deceased deliberately and wantonly excluding the mother of the deceased with malafide intention of securing the job on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent is liable to be set aside.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all these facts and fraudulent acts of 6th Respondent were brought to the notice of Respondents by giving representation dated 11.02.2025. In fact, in paragraph No.4 of the order of Provisional Engagement, the 5th Respondent has specified the condition that "If any information or documents submitted by the candidate is found false/incorrect at a later stage, his engagement shall be terminated accordance with Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020. However, no action is taken by the respondents against the 6th respondent. Therefore, he seeks grant of relief as prayed for.
10 of 16
16. Respondents have filed their short reply stating that OA filed by the applicant is barred by limitation. The applicant does not have any locus standi to file this OA.
17. Respondents further submit that parents of the deceased GDS do not come under "Dependent Family Member" as per Rule 2 of Directorate OM No.17-01/2017- GDS dated 14.06.2023. Further, as per rule 3 (ii) thereof, first priority will be given to the spouse of the deceased GDS. In such cases, only the consent of the spouse will be taken. In both the legal Heir Certificates at Annexure 4 & 8, the name of 6 th respondent is available.
18. The counsel for the respondents urged that it is the settled principle of law that a person who is neither directly affected by the impugned action nor has suffered any legal injury cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. As the applicant lacks requisite locus standi to maintain the present petition and the OA is devoid of merits, prays for dismissal of the same.
19. We have considered the arguments put forth by both the counsels and perused the records.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised specific points on locus standi of the applicant and on the maintainability of this OA. It is also specifically contended by the Respondents that parents of the deceased GDS do not come under 11 of 16 "Dependent Family Member" as per Rule 2 of Directorate OM No.17-01/2017-GDS dated 14.06.2023.
21. It observed that the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts has issued OM No.17-01/2017-GDS dated 14.06.2023 stating that it has decided to introduce revised scheme for compassionate engagement of eligible dependents of deceased Gramin Dak Sevaks to be known as GDS (Compassionate Engagement) Scheme' 2023' which shall come into effect from the date of issue of the Scheme and will be applicable in all cases yet to be put up before Compassionate Committee on Engagements (CCE).
22. The Gramin Dak Sevaks (Compassionate Engagement) Scheme, 2023 has accordingly come into effect from 14/06/2023. The objective of the Scheme as stated in clause 1 is to grant engagement on compassionate grounds to one of the dependent family members of a regularly engaged GDS who dies in harness while in engagement or missing GDS to relieve the family of the deceased GDS from financial destitution and to help it to get over the emergency.
23. As to who can apply under the Scheme, clause 2 thereof provides as under: -
"2. Who can apply?
A dependent family member of GDS engaged on regular basis who dies while in engagement (including death by suicide): -
12 of 16 "Dependent Family Member" means and includes the following:
-(a) Spouse;
(b) Son including legally adopted son/married son;
(c) Daughter including legally adopted daughter/divorced daughter/ judicially separated daughter wholly dependent on the GDS;
(d) In the case of death of an unmarried GDS, unmarried brother or sister (unmarried/widow/divorced/judicially separated) wholly dependent on the GDS at the time of his/her death;
(e) Widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased GDS, provided she gives an undertaking that she is not availing the same benefit from her own parenthood,
(f) Widowed daughter of the GDS, provided she gives an undertaking that she is not availing the same benefit from her husband's parenthood.
Note: A widow/divorced daughter or sister engaged on compassionate grounds will be allowed to continue in engagement even after re-marriage."
Therefore, it is clear from the above clause that the mother of the deceased is not covered under the term "Dependent Family Member" and is not eligible to apply under the Scheme for compassionate appointment.
24. Clause 3 provides for order of priority among the Dependent Family Members as under; -
13 of 16 "3. Order of Priority: -
(i) First priority will be given to spouse of the deceased GDS. In such cases consent of the spouse will only be taken.
(ii) Second priority will be given to the dependent nominated by spouse. In such cases the consent of the spouse and the nominated dependent will only be taken.".
25. From the reading of both these clauses, it is clear that 6 th respondent alone is the Dependent Family Member of his deceased spouse who died in harness while being engaged as GDS and he has first priority for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. Under the circumstances, the applicant is neither an aggrieved person nor suffered from any legal injury on account of the impugned order granting provisional appointment to 6th respondent.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State of Maharashtra & Ors (AIR 2013 SC 58) has observed as under: -
"7. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons.
Only a person who has suffered or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a 14 of 16 breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide :State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).
8. A "legal right" means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been 15 of 16 adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361).
9. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC 1289, a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons.".
27. Therefore, we find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that applicant does not have locus standi to file this OA. The applicant has failed to show what legal injury she has suffered in the absence of any legal right. When she is not eligible for compassionate appointment under the Scheme, she cannot be said to be an aggrieved person.
28. Though the applicant claims that 6th Respondent has deliberately and wilfully suppressed the fact that he was employed in Dentsu Digital Marketing, Chennai and was drawing a salary more than Rs. 75,000/- which clearly disqualifies him from applying for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, no iota of evidence is produced by the applicant in this regard. Further, the applicant claims that all these facts and fraudulent acts of 6th Respondent have been brought to the notice of Respondents by giving representation dated 11.02.2025. The same has already been considered by the respondents.
16 of 16
29. The applicant has admitted that her daughter was married 6 th respondent. In both the legal Heir Certificates at Annexure 4 & 8, the name of 6 th respondent is available. The 6th Respondent being the only Dependent Family Member of his deceased spouse is eligible for grant of appointment on compassionate ground and has first priority for such appointment under the Scheme.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in any of the claims made by the applicant in this OA. Moreover, as observed above, applicant has no locus standi to file this OA. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
01.07.2025
asvs.