Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
N Lokesh vs Deptt Of Posts on 24 March, 2026
1
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00100/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON: 17.03.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 24.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)
1. Shri N. Lokesh
(Retd. Ex-MTS, NSH, Bangalore)
#17, Papaiah Reddy Layout,
Manorayanapalya, R.T. Nagar
Bangalore- 560 032 ......Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri Sampangi Ramaiah)
Vs.
1. The Chief Post Master General
Karnataka Circle,
Department of Posts, Govt. of India
Bangalore-560 001
2. The Assistant Director (R&E)
Office of the Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle
Department of Posts, Govt. of India
Bangalore-560001
3. The Secretary,
India Post
Postal Directorate,
Government of India
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi- 110 001 .....Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri H.R Sreedhara)
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'
2
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ......Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
(i) Issue an Order in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Office Orders vide letters (1) No.R&E/2-5/1114/2022 dated 23/28-11-2023 at Annexure A-6 (2) No. R&E/2-5/Medical Invalidation Cases/Dealings dated 03/05-04-2024 at Annexure A-
8, (3) No. R&E/2-5/Medical Invalidation Cases/Dealings dated 09-08-2024 at Annexure A-10, and (4) No. R&E/2-5/Medical Invalidation Cases/Dealings dated 03-01-2025 at Annexure A12 passed by the 2nd Respondent which have been produced as ANNEXURE-A 6,8,10 and 12 as the said orders are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, irrational and violate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principles of rules of natural justice.
(ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents to consider the Applicant's prayer for appointment of his son on compassionate ground.
(iii) Pass any such other orders or issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
1. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant had a series of very serious medical episodes for several months from 13.05.2021 onwards. This includes being diagnosed as LEFT MCA TERRITORY INFARACT K/C/D IHD, undergoing several surgeries including Left FTP Decompressive Cranioctomy, Tracheostomy, Titanium Cranioplasty etc. Subsequently, he became voiceless and got permanent physical disability and hence he applied for VRS on 06.12.2021. Being in a pitiable medical condition and also being KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 3 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE unaware of rules and regulations, he applied for VRS. The same was accepted and he was relieved on 15.02.2022 by the Respondents, without him being explained the provisions of the DoPT OM No. 25012/1/2015-Estt (A-IV) dated 19.05.2015 etc. Subsequently, due to severe financial distress, he applied for compassionate appointment for his son, which was rejected.
His two appeals in this regard and the legal notice were also turned down and hence, he has approached this Court for relief.
2. Applicant
(i) The Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant joined the Department of Posts on 06.01.1993. While he was working as a Group D Employee, on 13.05.2021, he suddenly collapsed and became unconscious. He was diagnosed with LEFT MCA TERRITORY INFARACT K/C/D IHD. Thereafter, over the next several months he underwent specialised medical treatment and also several surgeries including Left FTP Decompressive Cranioctomy, Tracheostomy, Titanium Cranioplasty etc.
(ii) The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that as the condition of the applicant continued to deteriorate and in view of this permanent physical disability and loss of voice, he applied for VRS on 06.12.2021 on medical grounds (Annexure A-2). The same was accepted by the Respondents and he was relieved from Service on 15.02.2022 vide Memo No. BII/43/MTS/2021 dated 15.02.2022.
(iii) The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant received pensionary benefits in the form of Gratuity of Rs.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'
4
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
1,98,120/- and Commutation of Rs. 7,46,004/-. In view of major financial obligations regarding discharge of earlier debts etc and a measly pension of Rs. 18,411/- and being the sole earning member of a family, comprised of self, spouse, unemployed son, daughter and aged mother, he found himself in a state of penury and serious financial problems.
(iv) Hence, he applied for compassionate appointment for his son (unemployed graduate) on 06.06.2022. However, the same was rejected vide letter No. R&E/2-5/1114/2022 dated 23/28.11.2023 (Annexure A-6). The applicant preferred an appeal on 06.03.2024 which was rejected by No. R&E/2-5/Medical Invalidation Cases/Dealings dated 03.04.2024(Annexure A-8). The applicant preferred another appeal on 15.06.2024 which was also rejected vide letter R&E/2-5/Medical Invalidation Cases/Dealings dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure A-10). Thereafter, the applicant got a Legal Notice dated 23.12.2024 issued reiterating his request for compassionate appointment for his son which was also rejected by the respondents vide letter No. R&E/2-5/Medical Invalidation Cases/Dealings dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure A-12).
(v) The Counsel for the applicant points out that this repeated rejection of the request letters of the applicant for compassionate appointment of his son was in total violation of the various DoPT directives and Judgements of Higher Courts. He also points out that the applicant is a Group D employee with limited education and hence was not aware of the rules and provisions particularly those of the PWD Act, 1995. It was the responsibility of his superior officers to explain to him regarding the different options available KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 5 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE in view of his permanent physical disability which was not carried out. At the time of VRS, he still had nine years of service left and the provisions regarding alternate employment for him was not explained to him by his superiors in violation of the laid down guidelines and rules of DoPT issued in pursuance of PWD Act,1995.
(vi) The counsel for the applicant also states that the DoPT provisions pertaining to compassionate appointment for his son were also not followed and a very bald letter of rejection was issued. Subsequently, his appeals were also rejected without consideration of the DoPT guidelines.
3. Respondents The counsel for Respondents has furnished his reply.
(i) According to learned Counsel for respondents, the applicant being a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) at Bengaluru Sorting Division in Department of Posts suffered paralytic attack on 13.05.2021, while on duty. He was diagnosed to be suffering from left MCA (Middle Cerebral Artery) infarct and was physically incapacitated and hospitalized. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 06.12.2021 intimating his intention to go on medical invalidation retirement and requested the authority to guide him on the procedure. Accordingly, the applicant was provided necessary guidance in accordance with the laid down procedure. The applicant appeared before the Medical Board of K C General Hospital, Bengaluru- 560003 who carefully examined the applicant, and found him to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 6 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the Department. Accordingly, the Board issued a Medical Certificate vide no.KCGH/MBD/111/2021-22 dated 04.02.2022.
(ii) In view of the applicant being permanently incapacitated due to physical disability, as seen from the Medical Certificate issued by the competent Medical Board, the applicant's Request letter was considered by the Competent Authority for voluntary retirement on medical grounds and he was invalidated from service on 15.02.2022 in accordance with Rule-38 (1) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which reads that "Invalid pension may be granted if a Government servant retires from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service".
(iii) While the things stood thus, Respondent No.3, vide letter No. 17- 12/2022-SPG-II dated 20.01.2023 informed all the heads of postal circles, including Respondents No.1 & 2 that a module for online processing of compassionate appointment cases was being developed and directed the respondents to enter the backlog data entry of all eligible cases pertaining to vacancy year 2022 in the newly developed online module. Respondent No.3 also circulated a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to all postal circles with directions to enter the backlog applications in the newly developed online module in respect of all eligible cases pertaining to the vacancy year 2022 and pending with the circles as on 05.04.2023. There was also a clear directive that compassionate cases of the Departmental officials who availed voluntary retirement on medical invalidation grounds accepted on or after 19.05.2015 shall not be entered in portal, in view of the instructions KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 7 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE contained in DOP&T OM issued vide F.No.25012/1/2015-Estt(A-IV) dated 19.05.2015.
(iv) The learned Counsel for Respondents invites our attention to OM No. 25012/1/2015-Estt(A-IV) dated 19.05.2015 issued by Department of Personnel & Training which was issued in view of the protection provided to persons with disability under Section-47 (Non-discrimination in Government Employment) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act), which stipulates that "No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. Provided that, if any employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits; Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability; Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
(v) The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that in the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass & Anr vs Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 SCC 579, where KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 8 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the petitioner was not aware of any protection that the law afforded him and apparently believed that the blindness suffered by him during his service would cause him to lose his job, which was the source of livelihood of his family. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that it was the duty of the superior officers to explain to the petitioner the correct legal position and to tell him about his legal rights. Accordingly, DOP&T issued directions to all ministries and departments under Government of India in the matter, vide the said OM dated 19.05.2015 that in case a disabled Government servant seeks voluntary retirement citing medical grounds, or when the said notice has been submitted due to a disability, the administrative authorities shall examine as to whether the case is covered under Section-47 of PWD Act, 1995 and in case, the provisions are applicable, the Government Servant shall be advised that he/she has the option of continuing in service with the same pay scale and service benefits. In case, a disabled Government servant re-considers his decision and withdraws his notice for voluntary retirement, his case shall be dealt under the provisions of the said Section-47 of PWD Act, 1995, read with DOPT OM Dated 25.02.2015 (issued regarding treatment of leave and absence of disabled Government servants) and in spite of being so advised, if the Government servant stills wishes to take voluntary retirement, the request may be processed as per the applicable rules. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that all necessary assistance as laid down in the rules was provided to the applicant.
(vi) The learned Counsel for respondents avers that the Respondent No.2 of the O/o Respondent No.1, vide letter No. R&E/2-5/1114/2022 dated KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 9 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE 23/28.11.2023 (Annexure-A6 refers) communicated the orders of the competent authority to the Postmaster General, Bengaluru HQ Region, Bengaluru-560001 with regard to the request of son of applicant for compassionate appointment, with further instructions to inform the applicant that as per the clarification received from Postal Directorate vide letter dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure-R1 refers), the cases of dependent family members where the Government officials have retired on medical invalidation grounds after 19.05.2015 cannot be considered for compassionate appointments and hence, the application of son of the applicant for compassionate appointment cannot be considered and the case is treated as closed.
(vii) The learned Counsel for respondents submits that as per the provisions of DOP&T Office memoranda dated 19.05.2015 (Annexure-R2) and 07.09.2020 (Annexure-A13), a Government Official, before availing voluntary retirement from service is being given ample opportunities taking his disability factor into consideration and necessity to take care of his family by facilitating and encouraging him to continue in government service in a lesser demanding post with the same pay scale, so that he is able to take care of his family in the same manner as he was taking care before opting for voluntary retirement. Even after providing the Government official with ample opportunity to continue in service, if he still opts for voluntary retirement on his own decision, then full retirement benefits are provided to the official along with full pension eligible as on date of his voluntary retirement. The learned Counsel for respondents continues that in this case KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 10 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the respondent Department has provided necessary guidance to the applicant as per the prescribed procedure.
(viii) He continues that extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to family members of officials seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds is not fair and just, since compassionate appointment is just 5% of the vacancies reserved for direct recruitment, which is not even sufficient to meet the requirements of dependents officials who have expired while in service leaving the family in indigent condition. Moreover, he reiterates that the said DOP&T Office Memoranda dated 19.05.2015 (Annexure-R2) and 07.09.2020 (Annexure-A13) do not provide for compassionate appointment for the dependent family members of officials who retired on medical invalidation grounds.
(ix) Learned Counsel for the respondents further points out that Annexure-A14 is the compilation of all relevant instructions on the subject of "Compassionate Appointment under Central Government" updated by Department of Personnel & Training as on 02.08.2022. The object and applicability of the scheme as brought out by the applicant in the said para were issued by DOP&T vide OM No.14014/6/94-Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998 and is quite old. In contrast, the latest clarification issued by O/o Respondent No.3 vide letter No.24-44/2022-SPG-II dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure-R1), categorically states that considering the application of the dependent family member for appointment on compassionate grounds on grant of VRS on medical grounds is not in line with DOP&T instructions contained in OMs KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 11 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE dated 19.05.2015 (Annexure-R2) and dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure-A13) which are the latest instructions.
(x) The learned Counsel for respondents argues that to streamline compassionate appointment cases received on medical invalidation grounds, O/o Respondent No.3 had issued clarifications vide letter no. 24-44/2022- SPG-II dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure-R1) stating that, "It has come to notice that Circles are not only granting VRS on medical grounds but have also considered application of their dependent family member for appointment on compassionate grounds, which is not in line with the DoP&T instructions circulated vide OM No. 25012/1/2015-Estt(A-IV) dated 19-05-2015 and dated 07.09.2020. Circles are requested to adhere to the aforesaid DoP&T instructions in the letter and spirit."
(xi) The learned Counsel for the respondents avers that the plea of the applicant cannot be considered for compassionate appointment of his son, as he is not eligible and there are no justifying grounds for applying for compassionate appointment. Moreover, there is no provision for compassionate appointment in lieu of officials retiring from service on medical invalidation grounds, as per OMs cited above.
(xii) The learned Counsel for the respondents also invites our attention to a series of Judgements regarding Compassionate Appointment. They are cited as follows:
1. The Hon'ble Apex Court while passing the order dated 8th April, 1993 in the case of Auditor General of India and others Vs. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao [(1994) 1 SSC 192] held that appointment on grounds of KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 12 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE descent clearly violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution; but if the appointment is confined to the son or daughter or widow of the Government servant who died in harness and who needs immediate appointment on grounds of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family to supplement the loss of income from the bread winner to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family, it is unexceptionable.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement dated 4th May, 1994 in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs State of Haryana and others [JT 1994 (3) SC 525] has laid down the following important principles in the matter of compassionate appointment:
(a) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate grounds.
(b) The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial condition of the family of the deceased.
(c) Offering compassionate appointment as a matter of course irrespective of financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible.
(d) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V.Sowmyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704 while passing the judgement had taken into consideration the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, wherein, the Hon'ble court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in N.C.Santhosh KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 13 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Vs. State of Karnataka (2020) 7 SCC 617 and summarized the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, as under:-
"(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv)appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment".
4. Further, in the case of HSEB Vs. Krishna Devi [JT 2003 (3) SC 485], the Hon'ble Apex Court declared that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
5. He also places reliance on the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 708 of 2008 of Kamlesh Trivedi Vs. Union of India & others, wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that "The family is not found to be in penury conditions and there were more indigent person than the applicant. Thus the Tribunal would not be justified to reverse these findings recorded after complete appreciation of factual aspect."
6. He also states the Order of this Hon'ble Tribunal of Ahmedabad Bench dated 19.04.2010 in OA No. 179 of 2009 in the matter of Sri. Brijesh Kumar D. Patel Vs. Union of India & Others in which it was held that "when subsequent to the death of the bread earner, sufficient time has passed and bereaved family has maintained themselves, there can be no direction to the KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 14 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE competent authority to consider the claim for compassionate appointment. This is factual finding and the Tribunal will not enter into merits of the same because whether the deceased left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood has to be decided by competent authority and the courts can not normally interfere. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by way of right or as heritable public office."
7. This Hon'ble Tribunal while dismissing OA No. 393/2021 vide its order dated 29.11.2022 in the case of Sri. Girish V/s Union of India & others seeking appointment under compassionate grounds had held that, "If appointment is made at later stage, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which compassionate ground appointment is provided, as the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased Government servant to tide over the sudden crisis; compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment."
8. In the recent judgement passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide the order dated 06.04.2023 in OA No. 492/2020 filed by Shri. Ramesh M.Yaragatti, it was held that, "Grant of Compassionate appointment at this stage would, therefore, not be keeping in view the spirit of the scheme of Compassionate Appointment.... the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis...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 KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 15 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. "
4. Rejoinder filed by Applicant:
(i) In response to the reply filed by the Respondents, the learned Counsel for the applicant filed a rejoinder. He reiterates that it is clearly specified in the relevant OMs that the government servant who is opting for VRS has to be advised and guided regarding the different options available to him of continuing the service with similar pay skills and service benefits before accepting his voluntary resignation on medical grounds of disability.
Had this been carried out in the case of the applicant, and had he been explained the different options, he would not have opted for VRS and therefore the subsequent situation of seeking compassionate appointment for his son would not have reason at all. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgement dated 26.07.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in OA No. 170/0054/2024 in the case of Mirjaismail Rajeshb Tarafdar vs Department Of Posts.
(ii) To substantiate his assertion, he invites our attention to the fact that there is no mention of the DoPT provisions dated 19.05.2015 and 07.09.2020 in the relieving letter dated 15.02.2022 of the respondent (Annexure A4).
(iii) He further avers that DOPT OMs dated 19.05.2015 (Annexure-R2) and 07.09.2020 (Annexure-A13) indicate only handling of VRS notices given by a Government Servant on medical grounds or on account of disability. Moreover, they are merely guidelines and do not override/bar compassionate appointment for dependents. He cites the DoPT Scheme for KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 16 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Compassionate Appointment under Central Government, as revised on 02.08.2022 (Annexure-A14). According to him, this Scheme is solely applicable to a dependent family member of a Government Servant who is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension Rules), 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (5/years for erstwhile Group 'D' servants.
5. Additional Reply by Respondents:
(i) The counsel for Respondents filed an additional reply, addressing specific issues raised by the applicant in his rejoinder. He stated that in the matter of Mirjaismail Rajeshb Tarafdar v. Union of India & Others in O.A. No.170/0054/2024, the Respondents, in due compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 26.07.2024, placed the case of Sri. Mirjaismail Rajeshb Tarafdar for re-consideration before the duly constituted Circle Relaxation Committee of the Karnataka Postal Circle. The said Committee, upon examination of the case, recommended to refer the case to next CRC due to paucity of vacancies in the eligible cadre and the applicant's comparatively lesser indigency position.
6. Additional Rejoinder
(i) In response to the Additional Reply filed by the respondents, the Counsel for applicant filed an Additional Rejoinder. He reiterated that neither the concerned authority nor any staff/colleagues of the applicant mentioned anything about the provisions of DOP&T Office memoranda dated 19.05.2015 (Annexure-R2) and 07.09.2020 (Annexure. A13), wherein a Government Official before availing voluntary retirement from service is KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 17 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE being given ample opportunities taking his disability factor into consideration and necessity to take care of his family by facilitating and encouraging him to continue in government service in a lesser demanding post with the same pay scale. The applicant was not provided the necessary guidance by the respondents in violation of the procedure laid down in DoP&T Office Memoranda dated 19.05.2015 and 07.09.2020. Had the applicant been provided with the guidance as laid down in the DoPT OM, he would not have applied for VRS.
(ii) The learned Counsel for the applicant states that the contention of the Respondents, that the compassionate cases of the Departmental officials who availed voluntary retirement on medical invalidation grounds accepted on or after 19.05.2015 shall not be entered in portal, in view of the instructions contained in DOP&T OM issued vide F.No.25012/1/2015- Estt(A-IV) dated 19.05.2015 does not arise, since applicant's application seeking compassionate appointment dated 06.06.2022 is much earlier than the cut of date 5.04.2023.
(iii) Tracing the chronological sequence, the learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was pursuing the matter continuously as detailed below:
1. Applicant's first request letter dated 06.06.2022.
2. The competent authority rejected the request of the applicant vide Letter dated 23/28.11.2023.
3. Applicant's first appeal dated 06.03.2024.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'
18
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
4. The competent authority rejected the 1st appeal vide letter dt.
05.04.2024
5. Applicant's 2nd appeal dated 15.06.2024 addressed to the Secretary, India Post, New Delhi.
6. The competent authority rejected the 2nd appeal vide letter dt.09.08.2024.
7. Applicant got issued legal notice dated 20.12.2024.
8. Respondent's reply dated 03.01.2025 for the legal notice.
9. Applicant filed this OA on 20.02.2025.
7. Additional Reply
(i) The learned Counsel for the respondents, in response, filed an Additional Reply. He avers that in his VR application dated 06.12.2021, the applicant himself clearly indicated his intention to seek medical invalidation and expressly requested guidance on the procedure for retirement on medical grounds. At no stage did the Department compel, persuade, or in any manner induce him to opt for such retirement. The Department merely acted upon his request in accordance with the applicable rules. He argues that the cadre of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) is the lowest cadre in the Department, and there was no further lower post to which the applicant could have been accommodated. In view of his severe functional limitations as stated by the applicant himself in his application dated 06.12.2021, it was neither feasible nor practical to encourage his continuation in Government service, even in a less demanding post with the same pay scale. Further, given the operational KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 19 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE and manpower requirements of the Sorting Division, his deployment in that unit was not viable.
(ii) He avers that the instructions regarding retirement on medical invalidation were issued on 07.09.2020 and were circulated within the Department, and were available to the applicant. Further, Section 20(4) of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates that, where feasible, a Government establishment must consider shifting an employee who acquires a disability to another post with the same pay scale, or, if no such post is available, place the employee on a supernumerary post. These statutory protections presuppose that the employee retains residual functional capacity to discharge some form of public duty. In the present case, however, the applicant himself, in his representation dated 06.12.2021, unequivocally stated that due to the paralytic stroke he was fully dependent on family members even for basic daily needs, could not walk, take food or attend to personal functions on his own, and was not in a position to perform any official duties whatsoever. This complete incapacity was subsequently confirmed by the Medical Board, which declared him completely and permanently incapacitated for any kind of service vide Certificate No. Annexure KCGH/MBD/111/2021-22 dated 04.02.2022. In view of the applicant's own categorical declaration of total inability and the medical board's findings, there existed no practical or meaningful scope for considering adjustment to another post or continuation on a supernumerary post. Consequently, the question of "advice" under Section 20(4) did not arise.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'
20
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
(iii) He further points out that the Cut-off date of 05.04.2023 relates only to the closure of manual data entry in the newly developed online portal for backlog cases and does not affect the substantive eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment. The non-consideration of the application is entirely based on the binding clarification issued by Respondent No.3 vide letter No.24-44/2022-SPG-II dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure-R1), which explicitly directs that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to dependents of officials who voluntarily retired on medical invalidation on or after 19.05.2015, irrespective of the date of application. Further, the reference to Section 20 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is not applicable in the present case since the applicant, in his application for voluntary retirement, declared total incapacity and complete dependence on family members, leaving no scope for adjustment or continuation in service. Therefore, the reliance on the RPWD Act-2016 for seeking compassionate appointment is legally and factually untenable.
(iv) He submits that the Compassionate Review Committee (CRC) met on 20.11.2023 and 29.11.2023, both dates being after the issuance of the latest binding clarification by the Postal Directorate vide letter No. 24- 44/2022-SPG-II dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure-R1). The said clarification unequivocally directs that the applications for compassionate appointment arising out retirement/medical invalidation on or after 19.05.2015 shall not be considered. Being operative and binding instructions issued by the competent authority, the Respondents were required to comply strictly with KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 21 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the same. Accordingly, the applicant was treated as ineligible and could not be considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC).
8. Conclusion
(i) We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules etc, and judgement of the Higher Courts which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.
(ii) In the light of the averments of the learned Counsels for the applicant and the respondents, it would be beneficial to examine the relevant extracts of the documents and records submitted to the Bench. These are reproduced as follows:
"From, N. Lokesh, MTS. N.S.H Employee ID. No 10035752 Bengaluru GPO, Bengaluru-560001 To The Senior Superintendent, Bengaluru Stg, Bengaluru-560026 Respected Sir, Subject: Requisition for applying retirement on Medical Grounds.
Apropos the above, I would like to submit the following for your kind consideration and needful Sir.
While rendering service at N.S.H and on duty at N.S.H on 13/05/2021 and all in a sudden I fell down and was in unconscious condition. My co-workers woke me immediately took me to Fortis KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 22 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Hospital and Nimhans Hospital in view of Covid I could not get bed anywhere and finally I had to get admitted in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital on 14/05/2021. A report in the DH of N.S.H/3A Bengaluru 560001 may kindly be referred to wherein it has been reported that I fall down and was unconscious at 02204. I was in unconscious for about one month 15 days in ICU and in common ward for 15 days.
It was dragonized that I was suffering from "LEFT MAC TERRITORY INFARCT" K/C/O DM HTN. DYSLIPIDEMIA and IHD.
I had paralytic attack on my right side and there was no movement to my right hand, right leg and my vision to the right eye was also blur.
I was admitted to M.S Ramalah Hospital from 14/05/2021 to 14/06/2021, and I had undergone surgery for LEFT FTP DECOMPRESSIVE CRANIECTOMY under LA on 16/5/2021, and TRACHEOSTOMY under GA on 20/05/2021, detail report submitted. Again I got admitted in the same hospital and undergone surgery for LEFT FTP TITANIUM CRANIOPLASTY under GA on 05/09/2021 and was in hospital from 28/08/2021 to 15/09/2021, detail report submitted. And I am still under treatment at the hospital.
Now I am in such a condition that I cannot talk and totally depending on my family members for walking, talking, food, and even to attend my nature calls, etc. I cannot in a position do anything on my own and depending on my family members. Being in such a condition, it may not be possible for me to render my services to this department. In view of the above, I am intended to go on invalidations retirement on medical grounds. Kindly look into the matter sympathetically and guide me the procedure as how to get retirement on medical grounds and oblige.
I am enclosing discharge summary for your kind perusal and do the needful in this matter.
Date:06.12.2021"
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'
23
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Two important points which emerged from the above letter are as follows:
1. The applicant has clearly admitted that he is physically incapacitated and is not in a position to do anything on his own.
2. He has requested the Respondents to look into the matter sympathetically and guide him as regarding the procedure.
Medical Certificate dated 04.02.2022 "KCGH/MBD/111/2021-22 FORM 23 See Rule 38(3) Form of Medical certificate Certified that we have carefully examined Mr. LOKESH N. S/O D.P. Narayan in the Who is working as M.T.S, in Postal Department, Bengaluru -560001 and his age by his own statement is 49 years and by appearance is about 49 years. We consider Mr. LOKESH N. to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Department to which he belongs in consequence of Decompressive (FTP) craniectomy followed with titanium cranioplasty and post tracheotomy status with tube in situ due to Cerebrovascular accident as a result of left MCA Infarct.
Sd/-
Advocate for Respondent"
The Medical Certificate issued by the Board shows that the applicant is permanently and completely incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Department.
Relieving Order dated 15.02.2022
"Memo NO. BII/43/MTS/2021 Dated 15.02.2022
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'
24
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Sri. N Lokesh, MTS, NSH, Bengaluru - 01 has submitted a representation dated 06.12.2021 requesting for retirement on Medical grounds.
The above said official was directed to appear before the Medical Board, K C General Hospital, Bengaluru-03, for Medical Examination. The Medical Board, K C General Hospital, Bengaluru-03, Vide KCGH/MBD/111/2021-22 dtd 04.02.2022 has certified that Sri. Lokesh N, MTS is completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Department to which he belongs in consequence of Decompressive (FTP) craniectomy followed with titanium cranioplasty and post tracheotomy status with tube in situ due to Cerebrovascular accident as a result of left MCA infarct. In view of this he has permanent physical disability and he can be considered for voluntary retirement on medical grounds.
Therefore, in pursuance of Medical report of the said board, Sri. N Lokesh, MTS, NSH, Bengaluru 560 001 is hereby Invalidated from service with immediate effect in accordance with Rule 38(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Necessary relieving charge reports may be sent to all concerned.
VK Mohan Senior Superintendent of RMS"
The above Relieving Order basically recapitulates the VRS letter of the applicant and the Medical Certificate. It is very pertinent to mention here that in this Relieving Order, there is absolutely no mention at all, not even a whisper regarding the DOPT OMs dated 19.05.2015 and 07.09.2020 and the directives contained in the PWD Act. Relieving Order is absolutely silent about providing guidance to the applicant regarding the opportunities available to him or making him aware of the relevant provisions of the PWD Act of 1995 or RPWD Act of 2016 and the above mentioned DoPT OMs.
This is despite the fact that in his VRS letter, the applicant has clearly requested the respondents to guide him regarding the procedure to be KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 25 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE followed. Hence, the averment of the learned counsel for the respondent that requisite guidance and assistance was provided to the applicant is not found to be correct.
Compassionate Appointment Scheme "No.17-1/2022-SPG-II Government of India Ministry of Communications Department of Posts Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street New Delhi-110001 Dated the 23rd March, 2022 To
1. All Chief Postmasters General / Postmasters General
2. Chief General Manager. BD Directorate / Parcel Directorate / PL.I Directorate
3. Director, RAKNPA/CGM. CEPT/Directors of all PTCs
4. Addl. Director General, Army Postal Service, New Delhi
5. All General Managers (Finance) / Directors Postal Accounts / DDAP Subject: Scheme for compassionate appointment - Review of Relative Merit Points and Procedure for selection. ....................
3. Cutoff date for working out the indigency of the dependent family of the deceased employee: Date of death or date of retirement on medical grounds will be considered as cutoff date for the purpose of assessing the indigent condition of the applicant under RMPS for compassionate appointment. ..............
5. Rejection of case: Each case should be considered three times continuously in a row and if a case is not recommended in third consideration depending upon RMPS of the case, the CRC which is considering the case third time, shall reject the case. Past KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 26 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE applications which were not categorically rejected by previous CRCs and have not been considered 3 times by CRCs, shall be considered again (till completion of 3 times consideration) where CRC shall categorically recommend any of the remarks:
(a) Recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds
(b) Not recommended for appointment due to paucity of vacancies in current year. To be considered by next CRC
(c) Rejected ......................."
The above communication of the Government of India regarding the procedure for compassionate appointment brings out two important facts:
1. The Cut-off date for the purpose of assessing the indigent condition of the applicant under RMPS for compassionate appointment is the date of death, or date of retirement on medical grounds of the applicant.
2. Each case for Compassion Appointment has to be considered three times in a row.
Rejection Order Dated 23/28.11.2023 (Annexure A-6) "To The Postmaster General Bengaluru HQ Region Bengaluru 560 001 No: R&E/2-5/1114/2022 dated 23-11-2023 Sub: Compassionate appointment- Shri.Niranjan.L, S/o Shri.N.Lokesh, Ex-MTS, NSH, Bengaluru - reg Ref: Your office letter no. BGR/R&E/DEPT/CA/11/2022 dated 01- 03-2023 Kindly refer to your letter cited above on the subject. As per clarifications received from Directorate vide letter no. 24- 44/2022-SPG-II dated 10-11-2023, the cases of dependent family members where the Govt. officials have retired on medical KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 27 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE invalidation grounds after 19-05-2015 cannot be considered for compassionate appointment.
Hence, the orders of the Competent Authority are hereby conveyed that the application of Shri. Niranjan.L, S/o Shri.N.Lokesh, Ex- MTS, NSH, Bengaluru for compassionate appointment cannot be considered and, hence, his application for compassionate appointment is treated as CLOSED.
The orders of the Competent Authority may be communicated to the applicant concerned.
T.Rama Sudhakara Rao Asst. Director (R&E) O/o the Chief Postmaster General Karnataka Circle"
It is not disputed by any of the parties that the applications for the compassionate appointment of the son of the applicant were rejected, citing Memo vide No. 24-44/2022-SPG-II dated 10.11.2023. However, it is seen that the Request letters were not considered at all on the touchstone or the criteria prescribed in the above communication. This is further elaborated upon in the subsequent paras. Furthermore, it is not disputed that on the date of retirement on medical grounds, which is the Cut-off date, the applicant was indeed in a state of penury and his financial condition were very poor.
Hence, the catena of judgements cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do not appear to be applicable in the case of applicant.
At this stage, it will also be useful to visit the relevant paras of the OM dated 19.5.15 and 07.09.2020, RPWD Act 2016 and the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment.
"F.No.25012/1/2015-Estt (A-IV) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 28 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Department of Personnel and Training Establishment (A-IV) Desk North Block, New Delhi-110 001 Dated: May 19, 2015 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Request for Voluntary retirement from persons suffering from disability Supreme Court Order in Bhagwan Dass & Anr Vs Punjab State Electricity Board, (2008) 1 SCC 579. ...........
2. Instances have come to notice where Government servants apply for voluntary retirement under various provisions like Rules 38, Rule 48 and 48A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rule on account of hardships faced by them due to a disability, as they are unaware of the protection provided by the Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act). Section 47 of the PwD Act, 1995 is reproduced below for reference:
"Non-discrimination in Government Employment (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability;
......
3. The issue had come up in Bhagwan Dass & Anr Vs Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 SCC 579, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the employee who had during his service suffered from blindness, had applied for voluntary retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme court has observed that the Petitioner was not aware of any protection that the law afforded him and apparently believed that the blindness would cause him to lose his job, which KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 29 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE was the source of livelihood of his family. In those circumstances, it was the duty of the superior officers to explain to him the correct legal position and to tell him about his legal rights.
4. Keeping in view the provisions of the Section 47 of the PWD Act, 1995 and the above mentioned judgement, it has been decided that whenever a Govemment servant seeks voluntary retirement citing medical grounds, or when the said notice has been submitted due to a disability, the administrative authorities shall examine as to whether the case is covered under Section 47 of PWD Act, 1995 In case the provisions are applicable, the Government servant shall be advised that he/she has the option of continuing in service with the same pay scale and service benefits.
..............."
"No. 25012/1/2015-Estt.A-IV Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training Establishment A-IV Desk North Block, New Delhi-110 001 Dated: September 7, 2020 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- Request received for Voluntary retirement from service (VRS) from Persons With Disabilities - Supreme Court Order in Bhagwan Dass & Anr Vs Punjab State Electricity Board, (2008) 1 SCC 579 - clarification reg.
................
2. In this regard, it is stated that the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act) has been repealed by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act, 2016), which came into force on 19t April, 2017. Hence, section 47 of PWD Act, 1995 as stated in DoPT's O.M. of even no. 19.05.2015 is replaced by the provisions of section 20 of the RPWD Act, 2016.
3. Section 20 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides as under:
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'
30
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
20. (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. (2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability. (3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.
(4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service:
Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities.
4. In view of the above provision of RPWD Act, 2016 and Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement in case of Bhagwan Dass & anr vs Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 Scc 579, it is stated that whenever a Government servant seeks voluntary retirement citing medical grounds, or when the said VRS notice has been submitted due to a disability, the Administrative authorities shall examine as to whether the case is covered under Section 20 (4) of RPWD Act, 2016. In case the provisions are applicable, the Government servant shall be advised that he/she has the option of continuing in service with the same pay scale and service benefits. In case a disabled Government servant reconsiders his decision and withdraws the notice for voluntary retirement, his case shall be dealt with the aforesaid provisions of Section 20 of RPWD Act, 2016. If however, in spite of being so advised, such Government sorvant still wishes to take voluntary retirement, the request may be processed as per the applicable rules.
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'
31
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
............................."
"Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) Updated on 02.08.2022 .............................
DoP&T guidelines in the SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT UNDER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT are:
2. OBJECT: The object of the Scheme is to grant an appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. [Para 1 of DOPT O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 09.10.1998].
3. TO WHOM APPLICABLE: To a dependent family member
-
(A) of a Government servant who
(a) dies while in service (including death by suicide); or
(b) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rules 1957 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group 'D' Government servants); or
(c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group 'D' Government servants); or ......................."
From the above it is clear that the applicant was retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of CCS Pension Rule 1972 and therefore he falls within the purview of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment. It is also seen that KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 32 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE both the DoPT OMs dated 19.5.15 and 07.09.2020 have laid down elaborate procedure regarding providing opportunities to a Government servant who is planning to avail VRS on medical grounds by facilitating and encouraging him to continue in Government Service. This has not been carried out in the case of the applicant. It is also seen that Section 20(4) of RPWD Act, 2016 states that even if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post due to his serious physical disability, he may be kept on a supemumerary post until a suitable post is available. This was always not complied with. In this regard, the Counsel for the Applicant had also invited our attention to the Judgement of Coordinate Bench of CAT in OA No. 170/0054/2024 dt. 26.7.2024 "...................
7. The relevant paragraphs of the said OM dated 19.05.2015 postulates as under:
"3. The issue had come up in Bhagwan Dass & Anr Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 SCC 579, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the employee who had during his service suffered from blindness, had applied for voluntary retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Petitioner was not aware of any protection that the law afforded him and apparently believed that the blindness would cause him to lose his job, which was the source of livelihood of his family. In those circumstances, it was the duty of the superior officers to explain to him the correct legal position and to tell him about his legal rights.
4. Keeping in view the provisions of the Section 47 of the PWD Act, 1995 and the above mentioned judgement, it has been decided that whenever a Government servant seeks voluntary retirement citing medical grounds, or when the said notice has been submitted due to a disability, the administrative authorities shall examine as to whether the case is covered under Section KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 33 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE 47 of PWD Act, 1995. In case 8 OA 54/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the provisions are applicable, the Government servant shall be advised that he/she has the option of continuing in service with the same pay scale and service benefits.
5. In case a disabled Government servant reconsiders his decision and withdraws the notice for voluntary retirement, his case shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Section 47 read with the Department of Personnel and Training OM dated 25th February, 2015, mentioned above. If however, in spite of being so advised, such Government servant still wishes to take voluntary retirement, the request may be processed as per the applicable rule."
8. The same view is reiterated in the OM dated 07.09.2020. In the light of the said OMs, the burden lies on the superior officers to explain the correct legal position to the Government employee who has applied for voluntary retirement under medical invalidation. Further it was obligatory on the part of the Administrative authorities to examine whether the case of the employee opting for voluntary retirement is covered under Section 47 of PWD Act, 1995, in 9 OA 54/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH case the provisions are applicable, the Government servant has to be advised that he/she has the option of continuing in service with the same pay scale and service benefits. Even in cases where the Government servant wishes to take voluntary retirement despite being advised on medical invalidation, his request has to be addressed as per the applicable rule. As could be seen from the records, none of these procedure have been complied with, by the Administrative Authorities. On the other hand, the applicant's case was considered for compassionate appointment twice and finally placing reliance on this OM dated 19.05.2015, his case has been rejected.
9. It is trite that when the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, then it has to be done in that way or not at all. The respondent authorities cannot approbate and reprobate. No doubt compassionate appointment is not an alternative source of recruitment and no right is vested with the applicant for such compassionate appointment, the consideration of the request of 10 OA 54/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the applicant should pass the test of muster. OM dated 19.05.2015 was very much available with the respondent authorities while considering the case of the KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 34 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE applicant twice earlier. Suddenly rejecting the case of the applicant taking shelter under the said OM is perverse and arbitrary. Be that as it may, discussed earlier none of the procedure prescribed in the OM dated 19.05.2015 has been followed at the time of acceptance of voluntary retirement of the applicant's father on the ground of medical invalidation. Hence, the applicant's claim cannot be rejected on the ground now raised. Thus the OA merits consideration.
10. For the reasons discussed herein above, the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure A12) issued by the Respondent No.3, is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment in the next CRC meeting as held in the CRC mecting dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure A11) and take 11 OA 54/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH an appropriate decision in accordance with law on the merits of the case.
............"
It is clearly established from above that the Respondents have not complied with the directives issued by the Government of India in OMs dated 19.05.15 and 07.09.2020 nor they have complied with the instructions of the PWD Act of 1995 and RPWD Act of 2016 and Scheme of Compassionate Appointment. Hence, there is a strong case for providing relief to the applicant. However, our attention is also drawn to the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of LIC vs Asha Ramchandra Ambebar reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718. The relevant portions are reproduced as below:
"...................
8. Where the Corporation has acted bona fide and declined to appoint the second respondent, that exercise of power cannot be interfered with. Shortly put, the Corporation cannot be directed by means of a mandamus to do something which is per se illegal. ............
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'
35
OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
10. Of late, this Court is coming across many cases in which appointment on compassionate ground is directed by judicial authorities. Hence, we would like to lay down the law in this regard. The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. ............
15. To say, as a court below has done, that the second respondent is at the prime of his life and youth and is aged about 21 years and the dues that are paid by the Life Insurance Corporation to the family are the lawful dues that are earned by the deceased. Therefore, on facts, he would be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, is not the correct approach.
16. We are totally unable to support this line of reasoning. For aught one know, there may be other cases waiting already for appointment on compassionate grounds, they may be even harder than that of the second respondent.
17. Thus, apart from the direction as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. To straightaway direct the appointment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situation. The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be warranted. This is yet another ground which renders the impugned judgment dated October 19, 1993 unsupportable. For these reasons, the civil appeal will stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."
In the light of the above matrix of facts & circumstances, it is seen that the case of applicant falls very much within the ambit of the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Bhagwan Dass & Anr vs Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 SCC 579, and also that of the coordinate Bench of CAT in OA No. 54/2024 dated 26.07.2024. It is seen KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore 2026.03.26 L RANI17:15:33+05'30' 36 OA No.170/00100/2025/CAT/BANGALORE that gross injustice has been inflicted upon the applicant due to the failure of the respondents to comply with the relevant provisions of DoPT OMs dated 19.05.2015 and 07.09.2020 and also the provisions of RPWD Act of 2016 and that has caused irreversible damage to the cause of the applicant. Hence, the OA is allowed. It is hereby ordered:
1. Office Orders vide letters (1) No.R&E/2-5/1114/2022 dated 23/28-11-
2023 at Annexure A-6 (2) No. R&E/2-5/Medical Invalidation Cases/Dealings dated 03/05-04-2024 at Annexure A-8, (3) No. R&E/2- 5/Medical Invalidation Cases/Dealings dated 09-08-2024 at Annexure A-10, and (4) No. R&E/2-5/Medical Invalidation Cases/Dealings dated 03-01-2025 are set aside.
2. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant's prayer for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds, keeping in mind the Cut-off date as prescribed in the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment in the next CRC Meeting, in accordance with Law and issue a detailed Speaking Order.
3. No costs.
Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA)
MEMBER (A)
kr
KOMA KOMAL RANI
CAT Bangalore
2026.03.26
L RANI17:15:33+05'30'