Sarika Rani And Ors vs Secretary, Department Of Posts And Ors

Jasmine Ahmed, J

By order dated 24.06.2014, the candidature of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents on the ground of "limited vacancies" and getting 49 points on merit, which gave cause of action to the applicant for filing this OA before the Tribunal.

The father of applicant no.1 entered into service of the respondents as Sub Post Master on 2.07.1985. He was supposed to superannuate in January 2022 but he died in harness on 14.10.2010 leaving behind applicant no.2 i.e. his widow, applicant no.1, his daughter and also a son. It is stated that at the time of death of her father, the applicant no.1 i.e. the daughter was not major and was around 17 years of age. On becoming major, she applied for the post of Postal Assistant in the office of respondents under compassionate appointment scheme. The respondents vide communication dated 24.06.2014 conveyed that the case of applicant no.1 was considered by them but having secured only 49 merit points, she could not be appointed because of limited number of vacancies. Her process of selection was cancelled permanently, which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 7.05.2010.

The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the rejection of the case of the applicant by the respondents is directly in teeth with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Hari Ram Vs. Food Corporation of India and others reported in (2009) 3 UPLBEC 2212 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has struck down the guidelines that the maximum period for which an application can be kept for consideration for offering compassionate appointment would be three years, which has been followed by the Tribunal in several cases. On the basis of the judgment passed in Hari Ram (supra), the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) have themselves since withdrawn the OM dated 5.05.2003 which prescribed the time limit of three years for consideration of compassionate appointment.

In support of his argument for consideration of compassionate appointment case without any time limit, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on several judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of Lucknow and Allahabad. It is stated that the case of the applicant has been considered only once and the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily, in violation of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble High Court in Hari Ram (supra), closed the case of the applicant for further consideration. It is prayed that on this ground only, the OA deserves to be allowed.

The respondents have contested the case by filing counter affidavit, wherein they have stated that applicant no.2, after the death of her husband, has received sufficient monetary assistance as an amount of Rs.10,91,936/- has been paid to the family of the deceased employee as terminal benefit and also the family is getting family pension of Rs.8,655/- + D.A. per month. It is further stated that the family of the deceased employee is living in their own house worth Rs.4,56,480/-. Thus, taking into consideration the monetary compensation to the family of the deceased and also receiving only 49 points on merit chart, the case of the applicant has not been recommended for grant of compassionate appointment and also the case has been closed for compassionate appointment.

Learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that compassionate appointment cannot be offered beyond 5% quota of direct recruitment. Accordingly, in absence of 5% direct recruitment vacancies, no appointment on compassionate grounds can be granted. Thus, there is nothing illegal in non-grant of compassionate appointment to the applicant. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Shashank Goswami and another, Civil Appeal No(s). 6224/2008 decided on 23.05.2012, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court took into consideration the terminal benefits of the family and did not find any merit in that case for grant of compassionate appointment.

Heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents on record.

It is an undisputed fact that on the basis of judgment in the case of Hari Ram (supra), the DoP&T has in consideration with Ministry of Law, Department of Legal Affairs, withdrawn the instructions contained in OM dated 5.05.2003 in which a time limit of three years was prescribed for considering cases of compassionate appointment, vide its OM dated 26.07.2012. Here, in the case of the applicant, it is seen that at the time of death, the deceased employee left behind two minor children and his widowed wife. Receiving terminal benefits is the right of family of a deceased employee, which is not granted to them as a charity but their legal entitlement. Having a house worth Rs.4,56,480/-, as per respondents own version, may clearly reflect the condition of the house owned by the family of the deceased. There are no other sources of income of the family also. More so, the case of the applicant has been considered only once whereas as per OM dated 5.05.2003 also, every case of compassionate appointment ought to be considered at least for three years. After the judgment in Hari Ram (supra), limitation of three years has also been withdrawn by the DoP&T in consultation with Ministry of Law. Hence, in clear terms, the case of the applicant has to be considered again, at lease thrice on merit before closing.

Taking into consideration the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and other judgments passed by various Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal as also DoP&T instructions, the OA is allowed and the impugned communication dated 24.06.2014 is quashed and set aside to the extent it cancelled the process of selection for appointment on compassionate ground permanently. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant afresh as and when the next meeting for compassionate appointment takes place. No costs.