Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad

Vijay Kumar vs Chief Post Master General Up Circle on 10 August, 2018

                                                    (OPEN COURT)

           CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
                   ALLAHABAD BENCH
                      ALLAHABAD


The 10th     day of August, 2018.

HON'BLE MR. GOKUL CHANDRA PATI, MEMBER (A).


Original Application Number. 330/00561/2014

Vijay Kumar, S/o Late Ram Balak Yadav, R/o Village Dhobaha, Post
Dumariyaganj, District - Siddharth Nagar.
                                              ...............Applicant.
                         VE R S U S
1.   Union of India through Principal            Secretary     (Postal
     Department), New Delhi.

2.   Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.

3.   Postmaster General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur.

4.   Superintendent of Post Office, Basti Division, Basti.
                                           .................Respondents

Advocate for the applicant          :   Shri D.K. Srivastava
Advocate for the Respondents        :   Shri V.K. Pandey

                            ORDER

Heard Shri D.K. Srivastava, counsel for the applicant and Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for respondents.

2. The applicant's counsel submitted that the father the applicant died in the year 2006 while in service, leaving behind his wife, two sons and seven sisters. At the time of death of his father, the applicant was a minor. After the applicant became major, he submitted an application, alongwith requisite documents in the 2 year 2010 to consider his case for compassionate appointment. The matter was referred by the Assistant Director (Recruitment) to the Postmaster General. The claim of the applicant was rejected vide letter dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure A-7) referring to the letter of Directorate, Postal Department letter dated 11.10.2013 that the married son is not entitled for compassionate appointment. This order was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure A-1).

2. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant placed before the Bench an order dated 30.05.2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 620/2014 - Dinesh Chandra Vs. UOI & Ors and submitted that the grievance of the applicant would be redressed, if his case is considered by the respondents in the light of the order dated 30.05.2016 passed in OA No. 620/2014.

3. Counsel for respondents has submitted that if the case of the applicant is similar to the case in OA No. 620/2014, then his case can be re-considered by the respondents.

4. In view of the submissions of the learned counsels as above, it is noted that the operative part of the order dated 30.05.2016 of this Tribunal in OA No. 620/2014 states as under: - 3

"10. .........The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant, ignoring the fact that he is a married son, for appointment on compassionate ground, if he otherwise fulfils the conditions specified in the Scheme and communicate their decision by passing reasoned and speaking order to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."

From above, it is clear that the issue of being a married son will not be treated as a disqualification. It is further noted that the main ground of rejection as per the impugned order dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure A-1) is that the applicant is a married son of the deceased employee.

5. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case and taking into account the letter dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure A-7 to the OA) of the respondents, the OA is disposed of at this stage with a direction to the respondents to consider the fresh representation of the applicant, if submitted to the respondent No. 2/ competent authority within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order indicating justifications / documents including a copy of order dated 30.05.2016 of this Tribunal in OA No. 620/2014, to re- consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment as per rules and the respondent No. 2 / competent authority shall 4 dispose of the said representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order to be communicated to the applicant within four months from the date of submission of the said representation as stated above.

6. The OA is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

MEMBER- A. Anand...