Shripal Verma vs Union Of India & Ors

Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

By means of the present Original Application, the applicant prays for the following reliefs:

“ i) Issue suitable order or direction by way of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned orders dt. 21.11.2016, 03.02.2015, 27.01.2012 & 21.02.2010 shown as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4 issued by the respondent no.2 & 6 in this O.A. and issued illegally, unlawfully against the policy and instructions of the Government of India & Department.

ii) Issue suitable order or direction by way of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to decide all the representations of the applicant by reason and speaking order within a month.

iii) Issue suitable order or direction by way of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to order for “Compassionate Appointment” as per Hon’ble S.C. H.C. &CAT Judgment to the Applicant with all consequential benefits to the applicant.

iv) Issue any other such order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit & proper under the circumstances of this case.

v) Toward the cost of the application to the applicant.”

Brief facts of the case is that the father of the applicant was promoted on the post of Postmaster on 21.04.1968, allotted Pilibhit, declared quasi-permanent on the post of Class IV with effect from 19.05.1969 and was made permanent with effect from 01.03.1975. The father of the applicant expired on 09.09.2004 (Annexure A-12). The applicant submitted an application for compassionate ground appointment with necessary enclosures and received a letter dated 22.11.2006 from Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Bareilly for rectification of defects. In letter dated 09.06.2011, Chief Post Master General informed the applicant that his candidature has been recommended for further consideration to relevant Committee and the outcome of the above meeting will be communicated to him. In a letter dated 17.02.2012, the applicant was informed that due to the limited number of vacancies and low merit points obtained by him, his appointment has not been recommended (Annexure A-20). Meanwhile, the applicant submitted various recommendations from ministers/ politicians for appointment on compassionate grounds to competent authority. Various other similarly placed persons have been provided appointment on compassionate ground rejecting the applicant’s appointment in letter dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure A-1). Finally the applicant submitted a representation dated 28.10.2018 requesting to reconsider his appointment on compassionate ground.

Respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that the date of birth of the father of the applicant late Shri Dhakan Lal is 25.07.1945 who was due to retire on 31.07.2005 and died on 09.09.2004 after serving for approximately 38 years. The case of appointment on compassionate grounds of the applicant was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee in its meeting held on 26.08.2008 and was not recommended but it was decided to reconsider it in the next CRC. The case of the applicant was further considered in CRC in its meeting held on 08,09,10 and 16.12.2009 but it was not recommended. As recommended by PMG Bareilly in letter no. RPB/Rectt/CA-29/2006/6 dated 13.06.2011, the case of the applicant was sent to RO Bareilly with a conditional checklist. The case of the applicant was again considered by CRC on 05.01.2012 and 06.01.2012. The applicant could not be recommended for appointment as his merit points were 48 whereas the last candidate whose case was considered and got appointed had secured 71 points. It was communicated to the applicant in the letter dated 24.01.2012 (CA - 4). Respondents further submitted that the order dated 19.12.2004 in OA No. 460 of 2012 of Hon’ble CAT Allahabad Bench is not applicable in the case of the applicant. The representation dated 25.10.2018 to CPMG, UP Circle Lucknow by the applicant has been forwarded to Regional Office, Bareilly vide letter no. B-2/3/Rectt/Relax/Shripal/2005 dated 01.05.2019 (CA-5).

In the rejoinder, the applicant has denied the information given by respondents in annexure CA - 5 and submitted that he should have been awarded 56 points instead of 48 points awarded by the respondents. Rest of the contents are almost the repetition of points raised in the OA. The applicant has also submitted RA-1 issued by the competent revenue authorities mentioning that the applicant is a landless worker.

Heard both the sides.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted one order of CAT Allahabad Bench in OA No. 10 of 2018 which is not covering the case of the applicant. In this case, the death of the father of the applicant happened in the year 2004 at the age of 59 years. He had served almost his entire tenure of service. In the case of State of J&K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 766, it is observed that “Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need for compassionate appointment.” On the basis of above discussion, it is clear that the father of the applicant had served almost full tenure before his death, the family of the deceased has survived from 2004 till date, the applicant has got only 48 points (even if accepted as 56 points, as claimed by the applicant in the rejoinder), whereas the last selected candidate who was appointed had secured 71 points, and as per directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that 5% of the existing vacancies only should be taken into consideration for providing appointment on compassionate grounds; the applicant has not been able to establish his claim and hence, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.