Meherunechha Bibi Wife Of Late Afsar Ali Sardar Ex. Postman & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

Suchitto Kumar Das, Member A

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:

"a.Leave may kindly be granted to file and hear this original application jointly before the Hon'ble Tribunal as per RULE 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. Both the applicants have the common object for obtaining direction from the Hon'ble Tribunal for the appointment of the applicant No.2, the dependent son of the deceased employee in the postal or in any other departments under Union of India as there is no other efficacious way to file the application.

b. An order do issue upon the respondents to issue necessary order for the appointment of the applicant on the compassionate ground at the death of the deceased employee by setting aside and/or quashing the whimsical, Purposeful and arbitrary compliance order dated 24.05.2022 and dated 12.03,2023 and all other rejection order sof the respondent authorities.

c. An order do issue upon the respondents to produce entire document before the Tribunal for conscionable of justice.

d. And any other order / orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

This OA was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2024. The applicant in OA appealed against the order of the Tribunal dated 28.08.2024 by filing WPCT no. 314 of 2024. Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 04.12.2025 quashed and set aside the Tribunal's order dated 28.08.2024 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal after restoring the OA to its original position. For appreciating the facts of the case, submissions of the rival parties and the issue under adjudication, the judgement of the Tribunal (now set aside by the Hon'ble High Court) is reproduced below in its entirety.

"ORDER

Per: Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Member (A)

The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

"a. Leave may kindly be granted to file and hear this original application jointly before the Hon'ble Tribunal as per RULE 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. Both the applicants have the common object for obtaining direction from the Hon'ble Tribunal for the appointment of the applicant No.2, the dependent son of the deceased employee in the postal or in any other departments under Union of India as there is no other efficacious way to file the application.

b. An order do issue upon the respondents to issue necessary order for the appointment of the applicant on the compassionate ground at the death of the deceased employee by setting aside and/or quashing the whimsical, Purposeful and arbitrary compliance order dated 24.05.2022 and dated 12.03,2023 and all other rejection order sof the respondent authorities.

C. An order do issue upon the respondents to produce entire document before the Tribunal for conscionable of justice.

d. And any other order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

This matter pertains to grant of compassionate appointment. In accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, Principal Bench, CAT dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this matter can be taken up by a Bench consisting of a single Member. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal by this Single Bench.

Applicant no. 2, namely, Md. Monjur Hossain Sardar, is the son of Late Md. Afsar Ali Sardar who was serving as Postmaster (Gr. 'D' staff) in the Postal department of Barasat division, and, who expired while in service on 29.01.1999. Thereafter, applicant no. 1 had applied for grant of compassionate appointment in the year 1999 in favour of her son, i.e. applicant of no. 2. Being aggrieved with the inaction on part of the respondents in considering her prayer for grant compassionate appointment to applicant no. 2 herein, the applicants filed an O.A. being O.A. no. 350/1561/2016. The said application was initially disposed of by this Tribunal on 23.07.2019 as infructuous. However, the applicants thereafter filed a Review Application being R.A. 20 of 2021, and, vide order dated 07.09.2021, this Tribunal modified its earlier order dated 23.07.2019 and directed the respondent authorities to consider grant of compassionate appointment to the applicant no. 2 in the next CRC meeting. Thereafter, in compliance to the order of this Tribunal in R.A. 20 of 2021 (arising out of O.A./1561/2016) the respondents, vide order dated 24.05.2022, considered the case of the applicants and rejected their prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to the applicant no. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants filed an O.A. being O.A. No. 350/1266/2022 before this Tribunal which was, however, rejected by this Tribunal, vide order dated 15.11.2022.

Aggrieved by the same, the applicants filed a writ petition being W.P.C.T. 123/2022 before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 08.02.2023, set aside the aforesaid order of this Tribunal dated 15.11.2022 and directed the competent respondent authority to consider the application filed by the writ petitioner therein (the applicants in the instant O.A.) seeking compassionate appointment afresh on the basis of the Scheme/Rules prevalent at the time of death of the Government employee and not on the basis of the new/modified Schemes that subsequently came into force.

In compliance to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dated 08.02.2023 in WPCT 123/2022, the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata passed an order dated 06/09.03.2023 rejecting the prayer of the applicants for grant of compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the said rejection order dated 06/09.03.2023, the applicants have filed the instant O.Î'.

We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have considered the material on record.

At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the father of the applicant no. 2, namely, Late Md. Afsar Ali Sardar, died in the year 1999 and that, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dated 08.02.2023, the case for grant of compassionate appointment to applicant no. 2 ought to have been considered in accordance with the Rules/Guidelines/Principles applicable at the material point of time. Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (C.A. No. 7752 of 2021) in support of his contention. Ld. Counsel for the applicants further contended that the respondents had not correctly calculated the value of the assets of the applicants. He submitted that, in particular, the value of the land owned by the applicants was calculated as per the market prices prevalent in the year 2017, whereas, the same ought to have been calculated on the basis of the market prices prevalent in the year 1999 when his father, i.e. the ex-employee, had died.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in compliance to the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in W.P.C.T. 123/2022 dated 08.02.2023, the competent respondent authority had considered the prayer of the applicants seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of the Scheme/Rules prevalent at the time of the death of the ex- employee and had found that the financial condition of the family of the ex-employee was not indigent and had therefore not recommended his case for grant of compassionate appointment. In this connection, Ld. Counsel cited the order of the Chief Post Master General dated 06/09.03.2023. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the instant application is barred by limitations, as well as, by the principle of res judicata.

An extract of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Secretary to Govt. Department of Education (Primary) & Ors. vs. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa (C.A. No. 7752 of 2021) is reproduced below:-

There is no principle of statutory interpretation which permits a decision on the applicability of a rule, to be based upon an indeterminate or variable factor. Let us take for instance a hypothetical case where 2 Government servants die in harness on January 01, 2020. Let us assume that the dependants of these 2 deceased Government servants make applications for appointment on 2 different dates say 29.05.2020 and 02.06.2020 and a modified Scheme comes into force on June 01. 2020. If the date of consideration of the claim is taken to be the criteria for determining whether the modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead to two different results, one in respect of the person who made the application before June 1, 2020 and another in respect of the person who applied after June 01, 2020. In other words, if two employees die on the same date and the dependants of those employees apply on two different dates, one before the modified Scheme comes into force and another thereafter, they will come in for differential treatment if the date of application and the date of consideration of the same are taken to be the deciding factor.

A rule of interpretation which produces different results, depending upon what the individuals do or do not do, is Inconceivable. This is why, the managements of a few banks, in the cases tabulated above, have introduced a rule in the modified scheme itself, which provides for all pending applications to be decided under the new/modified scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interpretation as to the applicability of a modified Scheme should depend only upon a determinate and fixed criteria such as the date of death and not an indeterminate and variable factor.

Coming to the case on hand, the employee died on 8.12.2010 and the amendment to the Rules was proposed by way of a draft notification on 20.06.2012. The final notification was issued on 11.07.2012. Merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issue of the amendment, the respondent could not have sought the benefit of the amendment. The Judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Akkamahadevamma on which the Tribunal as well as the High Court placed reliance, was not applicable to the case of compassionate appointments, as the amendment in Akkamahadevamma came as a result of the existing rule being declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the Tribunal are set aside. The application of the respondent for compassionate appointment shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Relying on the above judgment, the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta had, vide its order dated 08.02.2023 in W.P.C.T. 123/2022, set aside the order of this Tribunal dated 15.11.2022. An extract from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced below:-

"In view of the law enunciated in the above Report it is manifest that the Rule/Scheme, which was prevalent at the time of death, shall apply to an application seeking compassionate appointment and not the Rule in vogue at the time of consideration of the said application.

In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, the decision of the authority as well as the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

The impugned order is thus set aside; as a consequence whereof the order of the authority assailed in the tribunal application is also set aside.

The respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the application filed by the writ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment afresh on the basis of the Scheme/Rules prevalent at the time of death of the Government employee and not the new/modified Schemes subsequently came into force. The entire exercise shall be completed within three weeks from the date of the communication of this order.

The writ petition is thus allowed."

In compliance to the aforesaid, the Chief Post Master General had passed a speaking order dated 06/09.03.2023 rejecting the prayer of the applicants seeking compassionate appointment for the applicant no. 2 herein. An extract of the said order is reproduced below:-

"I have gone through all the relevant documents in connection with the material case long with the representation of the petitioner thoroughly and meticulously and observed the followings:-

(1)Late Afsar Ali Sardar, ex Postman, Khantura SO under Barasat Division, died in hamess on 29/01/1999.

The applicant submitted written application (in plain paper) dated 20.02.1999 praying for compassionate appointment in favour of her son namely Monjur Hossain. In response of the said application dated 20.02.1999, the applicant was requested by the Supdt of Posts, Barasat Division to submit application in prescribed proforma and accordingly application in prescribed proforma was submitted by the applicant. The application form and relevant documents submitted by the candidate were examined and the applicant was requested to submit his consent if he had been willing for accepting job in any other ministries/departments of the Union of India vide C.O. letter no. SFB/V-22/99 dated 05.03.2001.

The applicant vide his letter dated 30.05.2002 (after elapsing of a long period of about 1 year and 3 months from the date of issue of C.O. letter dated 05.03.2001) submitted his consent directly to Circle Office instead of sending the consent through proper channel.

(V) The family of the ex-employee had received Rs.1,10,884/- Besides family pension of Rs. 1750/- Plus Dearness Relief admissible time to time. The applicant declared in the synopsis of the application for compassionate appointment that they have moveable and immoveable property of Rs. 9,94,875/-. It is also found that at the time of the death of the ex-employee all of his children were major and all daughters were married.

In view of above, the case of the applicant has been considered on the basis of the Scheme/Rule prevalent at the time of death of the ex-employee but could not be recommended as the family of the ex-employee was not so indigent during his death.

This is issued in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in WPCT no. 123 of 2022 dated 08.02.2023."

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of LIC of India vs. Asha Ramchandran Ambedkar & ors. reported in JT 1994(2) SC 183 has, inter alia, held that Administrative Tribunals cannot give direction for appointment of a person on compassionate ground but can merely direct consideration of the claim for such appointment.

The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, in W.P.C.T. 123/2022, had directed the respondent authorities to consider the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to the applicant no. 2 herein in terms Scheme/Rule prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased employee. The competent respondent authority, vide order dated 06/09.03.2023 has stated that they have considered the case of the applicant in terms of the Scheme/Rule prevalent at the time of death of the ex-employee and have found that the condition of the family to be not indigent. Therefore, the case of the applicants for grant of compassionate appointment could not be recommended.

In view of the above factual matrix, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the order of the Chief Post Master General dated 06/09.03.2023 is a well reasoned speaking order and does not suffer from any infirmity. With regard to the submission made by the applicant in his pleadings and by Ld. Counsel for the applicant during hearing that the valuation of his landed property should be made in accordance with the market price of the land prevalent in the year 1999 when his father had expired, this Tribunal is of the view that this argument is not tenable and cannot be accepted since the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, in its order dated 08.02.2023 in W.P.C.T. 123/2022, had directed the respondents to assess the claim of the applicants in terms of the Scheme/Rule prevalent at the time of death of the ex-employee. As per the extant rules/guidelines of the DoP&T, there is a ceiling on the number of cases that can be considered grant of compassionate appointment and only 5% of the vacancies in Gr. 'C' & 'D' are earmarked for appointment on compassionate ground. Hence, it is not possible to consider each and every prayer for compassionate appointment and the respondents are required to only grant such appointments to those whose condition is of extreme indigence. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in various judgments, held that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and anr. Vs. V. Somyashree (Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021) decided on September 13, 2021 has, inter alia, held that:

"(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 ground 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 consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment."

The applicants have, therefore, no legal right to be considered for compassionate appointment especially in the light of the fact that their financial condition was found to be NOT of extreme penury.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the instant O.A. lacks merit. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."

The above quoted judgement has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court with the following observations:

We have heard the parties at length. The petitioners have pointed out that specific pleading was made in para xxviii (page 26 of O.A.) that the petitioners' case is rejected in terms of new scheme of compassionate appointment and not as per the old policy. Thus, it is clear that a point which goes to the root of the matter has escaped the notice of learned Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have considered the validity of the impugned speaking order on the touchstone of the policy which was in vogue at the time of death of father of petitioner no.2. Having failed to undertake that adjudication exercise, order became vulnerable and cannot be countenanced. Resultantly, order dated 22.08.2024 passed in O.A. 350/1157/2023 is set aside. Said O.A. is restored to its original number. The Tribunal shall rehear the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law, keeping in mind the order passed by this court in the previous round of litigation. Since it is a matter of compassionate appointment, we request the Tribunal to decide it within 3 months from the date of production of copy of this order.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

The OA was accordingly listed for hearing on 11/03/2026. Ld. Counsels for the applicants and the respondents made their submissions and the OA was reserved for orders on 11/03/2026. Since the submissions made during hearing on 11/03/2026 are substantially akin to the submissions recorded in our earlier order dated 28.08.2024 quoted in full above, it is not considered necessary to repeat them. Additionally, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the Hon'ble High Court order dated 04.12.2025 in WPCT 314 of 2024 which has already been quoted above. Ld. Counsel for the applicant cites the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to drive home the applicant's basic premise that in the case of the applicant the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds in force at the time of the death of the employee should be applicable:

The Judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY)& ORS. Vs BHEEMESH ALIAS BHEEMAPPA in Civil Appeal No. 7752 of 2021.

The issue raised by the applicant regarding applicability of the scheme in force at the time of death of the employee has been settled in the instant case by orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 123/2022 and WPCT 314/2024 and does not warrant any further adjudication by the Tribunal. The respondents, by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 123/2022 and WPCT 314 of 2024, are duty bound to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds prevalent at the time of the death of the employee. The employee died on 29/01/1999. As per the applicant as averred in para 4(xxiii) of the OA, scheme as notified under OM no 14014/6/94-EsH(D) dated 09/10/1998 is applicable in the case of the applicant. A copy of this OM and the scheme is available at Annexure-A/14 to the OA. There is no specific denial by the respondent in their affidavit in reply that this scheme was not applicable on 29/01/1999 i.e. the date of death of the employee.

I have given careful consideration to the impugned speaking order dated 6/9- 03-2023 as well as the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. Though both these documents mention in general terms that the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicable in terms of the scheme in force at the time of the death of the employee, there is no mention of the name of such scheme. On the contrary, the respondents in para 27 of their reply have stated as under.

The statement made in sub-paragraph (xxiii) of paragraph 4 of the said application, that save and except what are matter of record and anything contrary thereto are denied and disputed. The deponent submits that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right. As per existing Rules, the compassionate appointments are made based on the following criteria:-

(i) The indigence of the family.

(ii) Appointment of compassionate grounds should be made on regular basis and that too only if regular vacancies meant for the purpose are available i.e. 5% vacancies of Direct Recruitment quota.

As per the number of case to be considered for compassionate grund appointment is much higher than the vacancies available, it is not possible to offer compassionate appointment to each and every case. In view of the above the Department of Posts has introduced a formula to measure the indigence of a candidate by allocating points to the applicants based on various attributes of the deceased official viz, assets and liabilities of the family, ages of the children, their marital status, number of earning member etc. vide Directorate communication No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II dated 20.03.2022 and SOP dated 24.03.2022. Thus the main criteria for making compassionate appointment is same in both old and new guidelines, only the department has introduced point allocation system to measure the indigence of all the applicant conveniently to select the deserving candidates against the vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment under 5% vacancies of direct recruitment quota.

Further, the case of the applicant has been considered on the basis of the scheme/rule prevalent at the time of death of ex-employee but could not be recommended as the family of the ex- employee was not so indigent during his death.

I have gone through the scheme on appointment on compassionate grounds dated 9/10/1998 placed at Annexure 14 of the OA. It does not stipulate a cap of 5% of the total DR vacancies in a year for appointment on compassionate grounds. This cap may have been stipulated by a policy decision subsequently. However, its mention in the reply in the context of rejection of the respondents's averment that the applicant's case was considered in the light of the scheme in force on 29/01/1999 and not on any subsequent scheme negates the respondents claim that the scheme prevalent on 29.01.1999 has been considered in this case. In fact para 6 of the OM dated 09/10/1998 states

Compassionate appointments are exempted from observance of the following requirements:-

(a) Recruitment procedure i.e. without the agency of the Staff Selection Commission or the Employment Exchange.

(b) Clearance from the Surplus Cell of the Department of Personnel and Training/Directorate General of Employment and Training.

(c) The ban orders on filling up of posts issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).

The above quoted para implies that no cap on the number of appointment on compassionate grounds was envisaged in this scheme.

In view of the discussions above, in my considered opinion the respondents did not consider the case of the applicant in the light of the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds in force at the time of death of the employee on 29/01/1999 in its true spirit. In the circumstances, impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to clearly identify the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds which was in force on 29/01/1999, i.e. the date of the applicants for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, and consider the case of the applicant strictly in accordance with the said scheme with follow up action within a period of 120 days from the date a copy of this order is received in their office.

The O.A. is disposed of. No costs.