Shubham Kashyap Son Of Late Devendra Kumar Village Datauli Ranghad, Tehsil And District Saharanpur vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department Of Communication And Information Technology (Postal And Telegraph Department) Govt. Of India Sansad Marg New Delhi & Ors.

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Shri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S C Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to file rejoinder and thus the matter is being heard and decided finally.

The instant Original Application has been filed seeking following relief:

“(i) To declare the letter dated 22.05.2014, 25.05.2017 and 25.07.2017 sent by respondent no. 3 is illegal and respondent may be directed to consider the claim of the applicant and appoint on the compassionate ground in accordance with the qualification of the applicant.

(ii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the instant case in favor of the applicant.

(iii) Award the cost of petition to the applicant.”

The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the denial of appointment on compassionate grounds by the respondents’ department.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the documents on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant’s father Shri Devendra Kumar was working as Sorting Assistant at Rail Mail Service, Rail Post System, SH Division Saharanpur and he died in harness on 14.07.2009 leaving behind his widow wife Smt. Sarvati Devi, the applicant, the widow of his elder son and her two children. Applicant applied for compassionate appointment in prescribed proforma in the year 2014. After repeated requests made by the applicant, for the first time, his candidature was considered in the year 2014 but not appointment was given to him. Order of the Circle Relaxation Committee was also not served upon the applicant. When the applicant requested for the same, he was informed that he only got 38 points and due to this reason, he could not be appointed. Again, the applicant sought information regarding other candidates who were selected to which it was informed that last candidate who got selected secured 63 points. Thus, it is argued by the learned counsel that marks allotted to the applicant were arbitrary and illegal and penurious condition of the family of the applicant still subsists as the applicant’s elder brother has also passed away. Referring to the number of family members, it was further argued that it is not possible to look after the entire family only on the basis of family pension. Learned counsel also argued that the applicant applied for reconsideration of his claim but his request was not paid heed to. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to allow the OA thereby directing the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the applicant for compassionate appointment.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and referring to his counter, he submits that a comparative chart was prepared in the Circle Relaxation Committee meeting and the applicant obtained only 38 marks whereas the last candidate who get selected secured more marks and due to this reason, the applicant could not be selected. Learned counsel submits that rules and regulations for compassionate appointment have been followed in the matter and referring to the facts disclosed in the counter, prayer was made to dismiss the OA.

I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the records.

As the facts of the case have already been stated above in detail, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is evident from record that case of the applicant was considered by the committee formed for considering the cases of compassionate appointment in the year 2014 and just because the applicant secured relatively less merit points, he could not be granted the benefit of compassionate appointment. However, it is also evident from record that the case of the applicant was considered only for once and impugned order was passed thereby rejecting his claim. Having heard both the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and specifically taking into account the current state of the applicant’s family and also the fact that there is no bar to reconsider the candidature of the applicant, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that the case of the applicant be considered afresh. Accordingly, the instant original application is liable to be partly allowed to the extent that the competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to reconsider the case of the applicant as and when the committee for considering the cases of compassionate appointment sits again.

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No cost.