Case details

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal · Hyderabad Bench
Decided: 8 October 2026
Case number: O.A./908/2025
Type: Judgment

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Central Administrative Tribunal

T Srinivasa Rao vs POST AP CIRCLE on 8 October 2026

Cites 2, Cited by 0

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD

OA/20/908/2025

HYDERABAD, this the 8th day of October, 2026

Hon’ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member

T. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late T.Anjaiah,

Aged about 36 years,

Resident of D.No.9-77, Panchayati Street, H.Nidamanur Village, Nagulappalapadu Mandalam, Prakasam District, A.P.State.

….Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. K. Venkateswara Rao)

Vs.

1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Prakasam Postal Division at Ongole.

2. The Director of Postal Services,

O/o. The Post Master General,

Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada.

3. The Post Master General,

Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada.

4. The Chief Post Master General,

Andhra Pradesh Circle, Vijayawada.

5. Union of India, Rep. by the Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi.

….Respondents

(By Advocates: Mr. B. Siva Sankar, Sr. PC for CG)

------

e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=dsatyanarayana74@gmail.com, CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA

Location:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member)

By this OA, the applicant has sought the following relief:

“……to hold that the inaction of the respondents in considering his representations dated 25.4.2023 and 27.2.2024. addressed to the fourth respondent on his compassionate appointment pursuant to the Memo No.17- 1/2022-SPG.II dated 23.3.2022 and Memo. No.17-1/2022- SPG-II, dated 20.7.2023 issued by the fifth respondent on the scheme for compassionate appointment is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and consequently to declare that the applicant is entitled for three considerations of his compassionate appointment in terms of Memos dated 23.3.2022 and 20.7.2023, by fifth respondent ,and pass such other order or orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant, are that his father, Sri T. Anjaiah, expired due to heart stroke on 26.5.2016, while working in the respondent's organization as a Postman, Lawyerpet S.O., in a/w the Ongole Head Office in the Prakasam Division. He left behind him a son viz., T. Srinivasa Rao (applicant herein) and wife by name Smt.T. Venkayamma, with no property, land/house, and no earning member. He belongs to O.B.C. (Razika). The death benefits of his father received were spent on clearing the loans raised for his father's treatment and also for his funeral expenses, and only a meager amount was left.

3. The applicant has submitted that he passed S.S.C. examination in March 2001, in first division by securing 326 marks total, excluding Hindi

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=dsatyanarayana74@gmail.com, CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA

Location:

marks of 63 out of 600 marks, passed the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., and passed in ‘A’ Grade and secured 764 marks out of 1000 marks. He also passed B. Tech. His mother Smt. T. Venkamma (Wife of deceased employee) requested compassionate appointment in his favour to the post of Postal Assistant on 23.6.2017, to tide over the financial difficulties of the deceased family, but, to his misfortune, his compassionate appointment was not recommended by the CRC held on 24.7.2018 and 25.7.2018 due to limited 5% of the total direct recruitment vacancies by the first respondent vide letter dated 17.8.2018, and was not categorically rejected.

4. The applicant has further submitted that his compassionate appointment for the second time was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee, which met on 4.6.2021, but, his case was not recommended by the competent authority and was also not categorically rejected, as per letter dated 29.6.2021, issued by the first respondent. His compassionate appointment for the third time was not at all considered. According to the applicant his case for grant of compassionate appointment was not considered and decided for a total of three times as per Memos dated 23.3.2022, and dated 20.7.2023, issued by the first respondent.

5. The applicant has further submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi, had issued memo dated 25.3.2022, on the scheme for compassionate appointment, wherein Para 5 reads as under:

Location:

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 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 recommended 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. Once an application has been recommended for rejection by the CRC and recommendation accepted by the competent authority which, after due consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case, did not find merit in the case, the candidature of the applicant shall not be considered again except under explicit direction of the court or discovery of new facts of material which was either not in the knowledge of the applicant or the applicant was prevented to produce the same on account of some sufficient cause.”

Thus, according to the applicant, as per the above orders, he is eligible for three chances of consideration for compassionate appointment because his case had not been categorically rejected even once. He applied for compassionate appointment afresh on 25.4.2022 to the Chief Post Master General, A.P. Circle, on receipt of DOPT Memo dated 23.3.2022, but, there has been no response. The 5th respondent had issued another Memo. No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II, dated 20.7.2023, on the same subject, and he submitted another representation dated 27.2.2024, in continuation requesting for compassionate appointment as his case is covered by both the Memos dated 23.3.2022 and 20.7.2023, but, there has been no response.

Location:

6. The applicant has further submitted that the Memo. No. 17-1/2022- SPG-II dated 20.07.2023, Para (iii) (a), reads as under: “(a) Past applications/cases which were not categorically rejected by previous CRCs and not considered for a total of 3 times in previous CRCS should be considered till completion of 3 times considerations. CRC shall 'Reject' the case in third time if the case is not recommended in third consideration depending upon RMP of the case.”

The above Memo dated 20.7.2023, including Memo dated 23.3.2022, are not followed by the respondents. He made two representations, but, there has been no response from the respondents. Hence, he has filed the present OA, seeking the above relief.

7. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply opposing the relief. They have submitted that the applicant’s father Sri T. Anjaiah, has joined the departmental cadre of Postman on 21.05.2011, and while working as Postman, Lawyerpet SO, a/w Ongole HO under Prakasam Division, died on 26.05.2016, leaving behind the following family members:

1. Smt T.Venkayamma - Wife

2. Sri T. Srinivasa Rao – Son (Applicant in OA) The following terminal benefits were paid to the family of the deceased Government Servant: Sl.No. Details of Terminal Benefits Amount(Rs.) Sanctioned/Paid Date of payment

1. Death Cum Retirement 1,85,600.00 16.07.2019

2. Encashment of leave 1,20,587.00 17.07.2019

Location:

3. NPS Amount 2,58,953.00 22.07.2025

Besides, the above terminal benefits, Family Pension of Rs.11,900/- Deamess Relief, Fixed Medical Allowance @ Rs.1000/-per month, has been sanctioned to the wife of the deceased w.e.f. 27.05.2016.

8. The respondents have further submitted that Smt. T. Venkayamma, wife of the deceased Government Servant, had requested to provide appointment under relaxation of recruitment rules on compassionate grounds to her son, viz., Sri T. Srinivasa Rao & Applicant herein, and the Applicant also represented for appointment under compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the request of the Applicant for providing appointment under relaxation of recruitment rules on compassionate grounds was processed as per the scheme and guidelines on the subject and all required synopsis information/ documents were collected from the family of the deceased and the case was forwarded to the next higher authority, i.e., the 3rd Respondent by the 1st Respondent for further scrutiny / examination and for taking further necessary action. After scrutiny, the case was finally forwarded to the 4th Respondent for placing the same before the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) for consideration of the case for appointment under compassionate grounds. The Competent Authority, the CRC, headed by, the 4th Respondent, constituted for the purpose, which met on 06.11.2017, 16.01.2018 & 05.02.2018, considered the case of the Applicant, but, not recommended the same for appointment under

Location:

compassionate as the case did not merit selection in the comparative study of indigent circumstances of all the cases considered by the CRC and also due to limited number of vacancies available for the purpose. However, the committee has decided that the cases, which were not recommended due to non-availability of sufficient vacancies, to be placed in the next CRC. Minutes of the CRC dated 06.11.2017, 16.01.2018 & 05.02.2018, were uploaded in the official website of the department/ public domain for information of all.

9. The respondents have further submitted that as per the decision of the CRC dated 06.11.2017. 16.01.2018 & 05.02.2018, to reconsider the not recommended cases by the next CRC, all such cases including the case of the Applicant, were placed before the next CRC held on 24.07.2018 25.07.2018. The CRC held on 24.07.2018 and 25.07.2018, has reconsidered the claim / request of the Applicant for the second time along with all other cases placed before it, but, not recommended the case for appointment under compassionate grounds as it did not merit selection among all 68 cases placed before the CRC, and also for want of sufficient number of vacancies under 5% quota of vacancies cleared by the Screening Committee under Direct Recruitment Quota. However, the committee has decided that the cases, which were not recommended due to non- availability of sufficient vacancies, to be placed in the next CRC. The minutes of the CRC dated 24.07.2018 & 25.07.2018 were uploaded on the official website of the department / public domain for information of all. The minutes of the CRC were also communicated to the 1st Respondent, vide 3rd Respondent Letter dated 09.08.2018, and in turn, non-

Location:

recommendation of his case by the CRC, due to limited number of vacancies, was communicated to the Applicant, vide the1st Respondent letter dated 17.08.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant had filed OA No.395 /2019, before this Tribunal.

10. The respondents have contended that while the matter stood so, as per the decision of the earlier CRC to reconsider the not recommended cases in the next CRC, the cases not recommended by the previous CRC due to limited number of vacancies of the Applicant, were placed before the next CRC held on 08.07.2019 & 09.07.2019 for reconsideration/reconsideration along with the new cases. CRC considered all the cases placed before it by awarding relative merit points as per the instructions contained in the Postal Directorate letter No. 37-36/2004-SPB- 1/C dated 20.01.2010. However, the case of the applicant, in its third consideration, also did not merit in the comparative study of indigent circumstances of all the cases considered by the CRC. Since the compassionate appointments are limited to 5% of total DR vacancies, there are only 12 vacancies available for the purpose for the vacancy year 2018. Out of the 87 cases considered by the committee, 12 cases having higher indigent circumstances (received more merit points) were recommended by the CRC for appointment on compassionate grounds and the relative merit points secured by the last candidate recommended by the CRC, were 46. However, Applicant's case stood at serial No.40 in the merit list with 41 relative merit points. Hence, the case was not recommended by the CRC and a reasoned speaking order was issued to the Applicant vide 1st Respondent Memo dated 02.08.2019. Minutes of the Circle Relaxation

Location:

Committee dated 08.07.2019 & 09.07.2019, along with relative merit of all the candidates considered by the CRC were placed in the public domain / department's official website for information of all.

11. The respondents have further contended that this Tribunal, vide order dated 08.01.2020 passed in OA No.395/2019, directed the Respondents to reconsider the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment by placing it before the appropriate Circle Relaxation Committee with in a period of Three Months from the date of receipt of order. In compliance with the order dated 08.01.2020 in OA No.395/2019, the case of the applicant was placed before the subsequent CRC held on 29.07.2020 & 30.07.2020 for the fourth time in a row. The case received 41 merit points and stood at serial no.52 in the merit list against the 18 vacancies available for the purpose. Further, there were no specific liabilities like marriage of daughter and education of minor children left over by the deceased government servant. As the vacancies earmarked for the compassionate appointment are limited (18 only), and as there are more number of cases placed before the CRC, which are more indigent than the Applicant warranting to provide appointment under compassionate grounds, the CRC found that the applicant's case did not merit selection. Accordingly, the CRC has considered the case and, however, did not recommend the case for appointment under compassionate grounds due to the limited number of DR vacancies (5%). However, it was decided by the CRC that the cases which were not recommended by it due to limited number of 5% of the total Direct Recruitment vacancies, in the next CRC. Minutes of the CRC dated 29.07.2020 & 30.07.2020, along with the

Location:

relative merit of all the candidates considered by the CRC were placed in the public domain/department's official website for information of all. The decision of the CRC was communicated to the applicant by issuing a detailed reasoned speaking order, vide the first respondent Memo dated 20.10.2020.

12. The respondents have further contended that in view of the decision of the earlier CRC held on 29.07.2020 & 30.07.2020, to place the not recommended cases in the next CRC due to the limited number of 5% of the total Direct Recruitment vacancies, the case of the applicant was placed before the CRC held on 04.06.2021 for the fifth time in a row. However, the case received 57 merit points only as per the revised relative merit points system communicated, vide Postal Directorate letter dated 28.09.2020 and stood at serial no.27 in the merit list but there are only 11 vacancies available for the purpose. As there are a limited number of vacancies and a greater number of cases having higher indigent circumstances than the applicant, CRC has considered the case and, however, did not recommend the case for appointment under compassionate grounds due to the limited 5% number of DR vacancies. It was also decided by the CRC held on 04.06.2021 that the cases which were not recommended by it due to limited number of 5% of the total Direct Recruitment vacancies, in the next CRC. Minutes of the Circle Relaxation Committee dated 04.06.2021 along with relative merit of all the candidates considered by the CRC were placed in the public domain/department's official website for information of all. The decision of the CRC was communicated to the Applicant, vide 1st Respondent letter. No. B1/Comp.

Location:

Appt/TS, dated 29.06.2021. While it is so, the Postal Directorate, vide letter No.17-1/2022-SPG-II, dated 23.03.2022, issued instructions that each case to be considered three times continuously in a row and if a case is not recommended in third consideration depending upon relative merit points (RMPS) of the case, the CRC, which is considering the case third time, shall reject the case. It was also mentioned that the past applications which were not categorically rejected by previous CRCs and have not been considered 3 times by the CRCs, shall be considered again (till completion of 3 times consideration).

13. The respondents have further contended that it was further clarified vide Postal Directorate letter dated 20.07.2023 that it is not necessary to consider a case 3 times continuously in a row in respect of past cases. Past applications/cases which were not categorically rejected by previous CRCs and not considered for a total of 3 times in previous CRCs should be considered till completion of 3 times considerations. CRC shall reject the case in third time the case is not recommended in third consideration depending upon Relative Merit Points (RMP) of the case. It was specifically mentioned that past applications /cases considered for a total of 3 times or more (whether or not considered for 3 times continuously in a row in past cases) in previous CRCS, should be considered deemed rejected. The case of the Applicant was already considered five times in a row but the cases did not merited selection due to lack of merit in the relative merit in the indigent circumstances of all the cases considered by the respective cases, the case deemed to be rejected and not eligible for reconsideration as per the instructions contained in Postal directorate letter

Location:

dated 23.03.2022 & 20.07.2023. Thereafter, nearly after eight years of his father demise and four years of last reconsideration (fourth time) of his case, the applicant submitted representation dated 27.02.2024 to the 4th Respondent seeking reconsideration of his case and alleging non consideration of his case and now filed the present OA No.908/2025 before this Tribunal.

14. The respondents have further contended that the case of the Applicant was already considered five times in a row in the years 2018, 2019, 2020 & 2021 and decision of the respective CRCs were also communicated to him besides placing the minutes of the CRCs along with the detailed comparison of all the cases considered by the CRC, in public domain. But, the Applicant now filed the present OA, after four years of last reconsideration of his case. As per Rule 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal shall not entertain the application unless the same is filed within one year from the cause of action. The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide its recent judgment dated 28.02.2022 in SLP(C) No.3008/2022, reiterated that mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time. Observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case are as under: "As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and

Location:

latches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action."

15. The respondents have, therefore, contended that, the applicant's case was already considered five times in a row, and decisions of the respective CRCs were also communicated to him from time to time, besides uploading the minutes along with details of all the cases considered by the CRC in the public domain. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for reconsideration and have prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA.

16. To refute the averments made in the reply, the applicant has filed rejoinder stating that the applicant case was not recommended for low merit and also want of sufficient vacancies limiting to the number of 5% of vacancies of the total directorate recruitment vacancies such denial was not categorically rejected, as required by Memos dated 23.03.2022 and 20.07.2023.

17. To refute the averments made in the rejoinder, the respondents have filed an additional reply.

18. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings placed on record.

19. This is the second round of litigation. The applicant had earlier filed OA.No.395/2019, seeking grant of compassionate appointment. This Tribunal, vide order dated 08.01.2020 passed in OA No.395/2019, directed the Respondents to reconsider the case of the Applicant for compassionate

Location:

appointment by placing it before the appropriate Circle Relaxation Committee with in a period of Three Months from the date of receipt of order. In compliance with the order dated 08.01.2020 in OA No.395/2019, the case of the applicant was placed before the subsequent CRC held on 29.07.2020 & 30.07.2020 for the fourth time in a row. The case received 41 merit points and stood at serial no.52 in the merit list against the 18 vacancies available for the purpose. Further, there were no specific liabilities like marriage of daughter and education of minor children left over by the deceased government servant. As the vacancies earmarked for the compassionate appointment are limited (18 only), and as there are more number of cases placed before the CRC, which are more indigent than the Applicant warranting to provide appointment under compassionate grounds, the CRC found that the applicant's case did not merit selection. Accordingly, the CRC has considered the case and, however, did not recommend the case for appointment under compassionate grounds due to the limited number of DR vacancies (5%). However, it was decided by the CRC that the cases which were not recommended by it due to limited number of 5% of the total Direct Recruitment vacancies, in the next CRC. Minutes of the CRC dated 29.07.2020 & 30.07.2020, along with the relative merit of all the candidates considered by the CRC were placed in the public domain/department's official website for information of all. The decision of the CRC was communicated to the applicant by issuing a detailed reasoned speaking order, vide the first respondent Memo dated 20.10.2020.

Location:

20. The applicant is the son of the deceased employee Sri T.Anjaiah, who died on 26.05.2016, while working as Postman, Lawyerpet SO in Ongole . He is B.Tech qualified and submitted his application for compassionate appointment, and the respondents have considered his application five (05) times, though he is eligible for three chances of consideration. Therefore, his application needs to be reconsidered again. He has applied for compassionate appointment under the relaxation of recruitment rules.

21. The meaning of the word ‘categorical’, as given in the dictionary is “very definite”. It is noted and observed by the Tribunal that the respondents have categorically mentioned in the proceedings dated 20.10.2020, that “as per order dated 08.01.2020, of this Tribunal in Oa.No.395/2019, the case was placed before the CRC held on 29.07.2020 & 30.07.2020. The CRC observed that though some of the terminal benefits like Encashment of leave and CGEGIS amounts were not paid, relevant merit points were allocated to the case on the basis of calculations/documents already submitted to DA (P) and the case placed before the CRC held on 24/25.07.2018. Now, it is noticed that the applicant has been paid all due amounts and the points arrived in accordance with Directorate like marriage of daughters and education of minor children as on date of death of the deceased official. As the vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment are limited and as there are more number of cases placed before the CRC which are more indigent than the applicant warranting to provide appointment on compassionate grounds, the CRC found that the applicant's case did not merit selection. Accordingly the

Location:

CRC has considered the case and however, did not recommend the case for appointment under compassionate grounds due to limited 5% number of DR vacancies”. It is very categorical and clear that on which grounds the applicant’s application was rejected. The copy of the proceedings was also communicated to the applicant.

22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 07.08.2013 in Civil Appeal No.6348/2013 in M G B Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, has observed that – “Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right.”

Location:

23. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 138], has held as under: "2……………..As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, 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 able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families

Location:

which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the Change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.

3. Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible.”

It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “the only ground, which can justify compassionate appointment, is the penurious condition of the deceased family”.

24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director of Education (Secondary) & Another v. Pushpendra Kumar & Others (AIR 1998 SC 2230), has also held as under: “The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision

Location:

enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment of seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138, this Court has taken note of the object underlying the rules providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and has held that 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 able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.”

25. It is to be noted that the case of the applicant was considered by the respondents five times in a row, but, due to not coming in the merit, the case was rejected. The compassionate appointment is not a right but a humanitarian gesture and a welfare measure on the part of the Government. It is not a back door entry.

Location:

26. In this background, this Tribunal does not find any merit in this OA. The OA is, therefore, dismissed, being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SHALINI MISRA)

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Adl/Dsn/ Digitally signed by SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=dsatyanarayana74@gmail.com, CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA

Location: