M CHANDRAMOULI vs POST AP CIRCLE on 16 October 2026

O R D E R

PER:HON’BLEMR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “….to declare the action of Respondents 5 to 7 in not recommending the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment as GDS, BPM duly recording that the applicant is involved in RD fraud without giving any particulars and also without any basis and denying the appointment on compassionate grounds to the applicant by the Respondents on such incorrect recording as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the applicant as GDS BPM in Anantapur Division on compassionate grounds forthwith and grant him all benefits from the date of this application as if he is appointed as GDS BPM on the date of this applicant as his case was illegally denied and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows: i. The applicant’s father, while working as Grameena Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) of Nelagonda Branch Post Office, a/w Konakondla SO, Ananthapur Division, died in harness on 24.04.2006, leaving behind his widow, two daughters and the applicant herein. Due to sudden death of the employee and seeing poor economic condition of the family, Respondents engaged the applicant as Branch Postmaster, Nelagonda B.O., on 25.06.2006, and continued him, thereafter, on temporary basis. Before engaging him on temporary basis as Branch Postmaster, Nelagonda B.O., the then ASP, Guntakal Sub Division, had collected the synopsis and other particulars about the family of the applicant for considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground as GDS BPM. The entire material, along with the

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

recommendation of the 4th Respondent, was sent to the 3rd Respondent, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the 2nd Respondent, on 13.09.2010. ii. The applicant submits that the Circle Selection Committee (CSC, in short) was to meet during December, 2010, but the 2nd Respondent, for reasons best known to him, had delayed the consideration of the applicant's case. However, the same was placed before the Circle Selection Committee which met on 10.05.2012. His case was rejected by the CSC on the ground that the relative merit points awarded to the applicant were below 51. The rejection order was received by the applicant on 23.05.2012. iii. The applicant submits that the Supdt. of POs, Anantapur Divn./4th Respondent had issued a notification inviting applications from outsiders to fill up the post of BPM, Nelagonda. Aggrieved by the rejection as well as issue of the notification, the applicant had filed O.A.No.668 of 2012 before this Tribunal which had passed interim order by which the applicant was continued as GDS, BPM, Nelagonda, without any interruption. Finally, the Tribunal had disposed of the said OA, on 20.07.2016, directing the Respondents therein to place the case of the applicant before the CRC for reconsideration of his case on the basis of merit points in accordance with the criteria laid down in the letter, dt.17.12.2015, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. iv. The applicant submits that the PMG, Kurnool Region/3rd Respondent had issued proceedings, dt.06.03.2017, informing that the applicant is not found eligible for engagement under compassionate grounds by the

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

Circle Relaxation Committee, in the meeting held on 10.01.2017 and 11.01.2017, which followed the guidelines, dt.10.06.2016. Basing on the said proceedings, the applicant, who was on duty, was forced to hand over the records to one Mr.Dilip Kumar, by the Asst. Supdt. of Post Offices, Guntakal Division. v. Aggrieved by the said action, applicant had filed another OA.No.476 of 2017, by raising a number of grounds. After hearing both sides, this Tribunal had disposed of the OA, on 18.06.2019, by quashing the impugned order and directed the Respondents to reconsider the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment as was directed by this Tribunal in OA.No.668 of 2012, by applying the revised norms as contained in memo, dt.17.12.20215, and applicant may be considered to any existing vacancy of BPM in Anantapur Postal Division. vi. It is submitted that the Respondents appear to have placed his case before the Committee on Compassionate Engagement (CCE) which met on 22.09.2020, headed by Respondent No. 5 in which Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 were members. The minutes of said Committee contained two Annexures. Annexure I contained the list of candidates whose cases were recommended to be engaged as GDS. Annexure II contained the cases of the candidates who were not recommended for the reasons mentioned against each in the said Annexure. The name of the applicant was shown in Annexure II at Sl. No. 3. In the remarks column against his name, it was recorded as ‘involved in RD fraud’ while working as a substitute.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

vii. The applicant has questioned the action of the Respondents on the following grounds:

a. The reason given is very vague and without any particulars. The fraud attributed is totally incorrect and misleading, just to deprive the applicant of the employment since he had repeatedly approached this Tribunal and obtained orders on merits.

b. During the period when he was working as GDP BPM, on temporary basis, from 25.06.2006 till 06.03.2017, inspection was conducted every year and, at no point of time, it was recorded in the inspection reports that the applicant was involved in any RD fraud. Thus, it is not understood as to how the Respondents 5 to 7 came to the conclusion that the applicant was involved in RD fraud.

c. The applicant was in service for about 11 years as GDS BPM, on temporary basis, and, at no point of time, any charge of RD fraud was framed against him nor was any enquiry conducted and the same was proved against him. As the said remark causes stigma to the applicant, he should have been put on notice, but without doing so, recording the stigmatic remarks against the applicant and denying him compassionate appointment, is arbitrary, illegal and voilative of principles of natural justice and thus the same has to be set aside.

3. On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement, wherein they have averred as follows: i. Keeping in view the objective of the Scheme for engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs, in short) on compassionate grounds, the

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

existing procedure has been reviewed by the Postal Directorate and a new scheme for engagement of GDSs on compassionate grounds and a merit points based selection procedure was introduced, vide Directorate, New Delhi/1st Respondent letter No. 17-17/2010-GDS, dt.14.12.2010, which is applicable to all compassionate cases to be considered on or after 01.01.2011. Later, the Postal Directorate issued partial modifications/clarifications to the existing provisions of the newly introduced merit points scheme, vide letters No.17-17/2010- GDS, dt.01.08.2011, 09.03.2012, 13.04.2012 and 09.10.2013, according to which, the merits of the cases can be conveniently indicated by allocating points to the Applicants based on various attributes, based on a 100-point scale to achieve the objective of the scheme and to ensure complete transparency. All requests for compassionate engagement would be considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC, in short), on application of the relative merit points prescribed by the Directorate subject to the availability of vacancy, on fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the GDS post. It is further submitted that the term "hard and deserving cases" would mean cases over and above 50 merit points. As per Para 3 of the Directorate's letter, dt.14.12.2010, only exceptional and deserving cases are to be considered, as the scheme stipulates that compassionate engagement is to be given only in "indigent and deserving cases". Subsequently, the Government / Department revised the merit points for various attributes, vide Directorate's letter No. 17-17/2010-GDS, dt.17.12.2015. In the said order, the threshold for adjudging “hard and

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

deserving cases” was revised as 36 merit points in place of the existing 51 points. Further, a corrigendum was issued vide Directorate's Letter No. 17-17/2010-GDS, dt.10.06.2016, that – "The revised provisions will be given effect from the date of issue of these instructions in respect of those cases considered in CRCs held after 17.12.2015 and ordered that the cases already settled before 17.12.2015 need not strictly be reopened".

Thus, only the revised merit points notified vide the Directorate's letter, dt.17.12.2015, and the revised threshold of 36 merit points for adjudging hard and deserving cases is applicable for the cases considered after 17.12.2015. ii. The Scheme was again reviewed at the Postal Directorate and the point system was dispensed with, vide Directorate Lr. No. 17-01/2017-GDS, dt.30.05.2017. However, in Para (3) of the said letter, it is ordered that the scheme will come into effect from the date of issue of the letter and will be applicable to all cases pending and arising on or after the said date and that the cases which have already been settled will not be reopened. iii. Sri M.Ramanjaneyulu, GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO a/w Konakondla SO, who was engaged in the department on 24.01.1979, died on 24.05.2006, while in service, leaving behind his wife, one son (the applicant, herein) and two daughters. The two daughters got married and were living separately with their family. The deceased GDS had rendered more than 27 years of service in the department in the GDS cadre. Smt. M.Obulamma, wife of the deceased GDS, requested for

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

appointment of her son, M.Chandramouli, the applicant herein, as she was not eligible for the GDS post having studied up to the 7th class. Her request was processed as per the scheme and guidelines on the subject. iv. The bereaved family was left with property of a house, worth Rs.50000/- at Nelagonda village, and 7.91 acres of dry land, worth Rs.1,00,000/-. Loans worth Rs.2,34,000/- had been taken by Smt. M.Obulamma. The applicant was allowed to work as a substitute in the vacancy caused by the death of his father w.e.f. 24.05.2006, on a stop- gap arrangement on the responsibility of other/neighbouring GDSs who were given the said post, on additional charge basis, as per the rules/procedure on the subject. v. The request/claim of the applicant was processed as per the scheme/guidelines and the Circle Relaxation Committee, which met on 10.05.2012, considered the case of the applicant along with other cases, but did not recommend his case on the ground that his case had received less than 51 merit points and opined that the case did not fall under the category of “hard and deserving cases”, as communicated vide the 2nd Respondent's letter, dt.15.05.2012. Consequent upon the disposal of the request/claim of the applicant, a notification was issued, vide R-4 letter, dt.29.05.2012, for filling up of the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO. The selection/recruitment process was completed and one P.Dileep Kumar was selected for the said post and issue of appointment order was in process.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

vi. While the matter stood thus, aggrieved by the decision of the CRC and issue of open notification, the applicant filed OA No.668 of 2012 before this Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide its interim order, dt.25.06.2012, ordered that – “There shall be interim order for two weeks as it is reported by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is now working as GDS BPM, Nelagonda Branch Post Office.

In compliance with the said interim orders, the applicant was continued as substitute GDSBPM, Nelagonda BO. Finally, OA.668/2012 was disposed of on 20.07.2016, with a direction to the Respondents to place the case of the applicant before the next meeting of the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) for reconsideration of his case on the basis of revised merit points, in accordance with the criteria laid down in letter, dt.17.12.2015, within three months. vii. The CRC met on 10.01.2017 & 11.01.2017 and re-considered the case of the applicant, as per the instructions, dt.10.06.2016, of the Dept. of Posts, and issued a speaking order, vide R-3 letter, dt.06.03.2017, finding that the applicant was not eligible for engagement on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, Sri P.Dileep Kumar, the selected candidate approached the Respondents, vide his representation, dt.25.04.2017, requesting to issue necessary appointment order to him and, accordingly, necessary appointment order was issued. Though the applicant was not willing to hand over the charge of the said post to the regularly selected candidate, he was convinced that the order passed by this Tribunal was already complied with by issuing speaking order, dt.06.03.2017, and that no claim of the

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

applicant for compassionate engagement was pending as on that date. Sri P.Dileep Kumar, the regularly selected candidate joined the post of GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO on 09.05.2017, and is working as such in the said post as on date.

viii. Aggrieved, the applicant came in the second round of litigation before this Tribunal in OA No. 476/2017 and the Tribunal disposed of the OA, vide order, dt.18.06.2019, with a direction to the Respondents to reconsider the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment, as was directed by this Tribunal in OA No.668/2012, by applying the revised norms as contained in memo, dt.17.12.2015. It was also ordered that the Applicant may be considered to any existing vacancy of BPM in Anantapur Postal Division within 04 months. ix. Subsequently, the competent Authority again reviewed the instructions under the Scheme, vide Letter, dt.05.03.2020, and approved repeal of the sentence, the cases which have already been settled will not be reopened’ (Para 3 of Directorate OM of even number, dated 30.05.2017), as a one-time measure, in cases earlier rejected by the Committee on Compassionate Engagement (CCE) between the period from 2005 and May 2017. This review, as a one-time measure, was to be concluded by the prescribed CCE within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the OM and the CCE, while examining these compassionate engagement cases, was to adhere to the instructions issued vide the Postal Directorate's OM No. 17-01/2017- GDS, dated 30.05.2017 and 18.12.2019, in the true spirit. The four

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

months’ period was extended upto 31.08.2020 and further upto 31.10.2020. x. On joining of Sri P.Dileep Kumar, the regularly selected candidate in the post of GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO, on 09.05.2017, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Guntakal, commenced cent percent verification of the said Branch Post Office, during which, non crediting of amounts collected from the depositors by the applicant in nine Recurring Deposit accounts was noticed and the applicant was informed about the non credits during his period of working, i.e., from 25.06.2006 to 09.05.2017. xi. The applicant accepted his lapses/irregularities and credited the fraud amount into PO accounts on 06.07.2017 at Konakondla SO and the said amount of fraud was restored to the RD accounts of the respective depositors, vide the 4th Respondent's Memo, dt.01.12.2020. The frauds/embezzlement of public money by the applicant, while he was working as GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO, under the stop gap arrangement, was reported by the 4th Respondent, vide letter, dt. 09.06.2020, to the competent authority while submitting the proposal for compassionate engagement. xii. The Committee for Compassionate Engagement (CCE) constituted for the purpose met from 22.09.2020 to 24.09.2020 & on 15.10.2020 and considered/reviewed the GDS CCE cases which were not recommended by the Committee on Compassionate Engagement (CCE) during the period from 2005 to May 2017. The applicant's case was also considered by the GDS CCE along with all other such cases,

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

in accordance with the Directorate's orders/guidelines and submitted that the CCE has not recommended the case for engagement to GDS post under compassionate grounds for the reason that the 'applicant involved in Post Office Recurring Deposit frauds while working as substitute', which was approved by the competent authority, i.e., the 2nd Respondent. The same was informed to the applicant, vide the 2nd Respondent's Memo, dt.23.11.2020. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA.

xiii. Further, the contention of the applicant that he was engaged as GDSBPM. Nelagonda BO, by the Respondents is denied. The applicant was allowed to work as a substitute in the said vacant post under a stop gap arrangement, by giving additional charge of Nelagonda BO to other/ neighbouring regular GDS.

xiv. Since the applicant is an outsider, and had worked as a substitute in the vacant post of GDSBPM, on temporary basis, under stop gap arrangement, on the own responsibility of the regular GDS who was given additional charge of the said post, initiation of departmental action against the applicant is not possible under the provisions of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules. Further, the applicant was no more engaged in the said post/department by the time the frauds/irregularities committed by him came to light. Therefore, the averment of the applicant questioning as to how Respondents 5 to 7 came to the conclusion that the applicant was involved in RD fraud and claiming that the allegation is totally baseless and incorrect and it

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

meant to deprive him of compassionate appointment, etc., does not hold water. xv. Respondents submit that good conduct/character and antecedents is a must for all candidates seeking Government Service. Denial of compassionate appointment on account of having a tainted service record, would deter employees from indulging in misconduct.

xvi. It is further submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. The primary object of such a scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis occurring due to the death of the sole bread earner. It is, thus, an exception to the general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment. In this connection, Respondents have relied upon the following decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Court/Tribunal in cases filed on similar grounds, in support of their contention:

i. The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement, dt.04.05.1994, in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others [JT 1994(3) S.C. 525].

ii. National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Vs. Nanak Chand, (2004) 12 SCC 487, at Page 490:

iii. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. A. Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394, at Page 396:

iv. LIC Vs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar, (1994) 2 SCC 718, at Page 721:

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

v. Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. [(2009) 6 SCC):

vi. The Hon'ble CAT, Ahmedabad Bench order, dt.19.04.2010, in OA No. 179/2009 in the matter of Sri Brijesh Kumar D. Patel Vs. Union of India & Others.

vii. The Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad Bench order, dt.01.07.2019, in OA No. 1044/2018.

viii. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras judgment, dt.09.01.2018, disposed the case of W.P.(MD) No.20872/2013 between P. Balasubramanian vs. The Commissioner.

xvii. Respondents have prayed to dismiss the OA as devoid of merits.

4. Applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submissions already made in the OA.

5. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

6. It is found that the case of the applicant has been considered, as per the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA.668/2012 and OA.476/2017, on 20.07.2016 & 18.06.2019, respectively. The rejection by the CCE on 22.09.2020 (Ann.A-I), on the ground of fraud, is the issue before us.

7. It is a fact that the applicant worked as a substitute and there is no jural relationship of employee and employer between the applicant and the Respondent department whereby he could be subjected to departmental action. Respondents have listed 9 instances of non-credit of R.D. amounts by the applicant, which were revealed during the cent percent verification. The

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

following paragraphs in the rejoinder filed by the applicant do not absolve him of his liability – “5. I submit that all the transactions except at Sl. Nos. 2 and 9 belong to April, 2017 which is after I was sent out service duly taking over the charge from me and thus the same are created and fabricated and made false allegations against me just to deprive me the compassionate appointment.

6. I submit that even the entries at Sl. Nos. 2 and 9 alleged to have been during February, 2017 are also false and incorrect and the same have been created.”

8. With respect to the list of transactions, shown at para 11 of the reply statement, which covers the period from 07.02.2017 till 20.04.2017, the applicant's counsel has contended that, except the transactions shown at Sl.No.2 & 9, all others pertain to the month of April, 2017, i.e., after the applicant was disengaged from the charge on 06.03.2017 and is a fraud played by the Respondents, without sufficient evidence, to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment to the applicant. Though the applicant has categorically denied the said allegations, at para 3 of the rejoinder, Respondents have rebutted the same.

9. In this regard, Respondents have submitted that – “When the same were brought to the notice, the applicant accepted his lapses/irregularities and credited the fraud amount into PO accounts on 06.07.2017 at Konakondla SO. The frauds/irregularities were committed by the applicant just 2-3 months before his relief from the post of GDS BPM, Nelagonda BO, a/w Konakondla SO, and the same were noticed subsequently during the course of cent percent verification.”

The applicant has paid back the defrauded amount, accepting his lapses, and the said amount was restored to the accounts of the respective depositors.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

10. Thus, Respondents cannot be forced to accept a candidate for compassionate appointment despite his involvement in fraudulent activity. They have already granted him much needed succour immediately after his father’s demise and the applicant could earn his livelihood for over eleven years. Good character and antecedents are essential conditions for any appointment. On this ground, the case of the applicant fails to meet the required standards of probity.

11. The following observations by the respective Courts are worth considering in the present case - Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors (JT 1994 (3) S.C.525):

“Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.”

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. A.Radhika Thirumalai, (1996) 6 SCC 394:

“….has to be given in accordance with the relevant rules and guidelines that have been framed by the authority concerned and no person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds in disregard of such rule or such guidance.”

CAT, Ahmedabad Bench order, dt.19.04.2010, in OA.179/2009, between Sri Brijesh Kumar D.Patel vs. UOI & Ors.:

“When subsequent to the death of the bread earner, sufficient time has passed and bereaved family has maintained themselves, there can be no direction to the competent authority to consider the claim for compassionate appointment.”

High Court of Madras judgment, dt.09.01.2018, in WP(MD) No.20872/2013, between P.Balasubramanian vs. The Commissioner:

“15.Thus, the concept of compassionate appointment itself is to be reconsidered by the Government and it should be restricted so as to provide appointment only to the legal heirs of the deceased in genuine circumstances. Otherwise, the scheme of compassionate appointment will have a negative impacts on the good governance and further, it will affect

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

the chances of the meritorious candidates, who can participate in the public administration in the better manner.”

“….When the Courts are providing an exceptional scheme of compassionate appointment to the individual, it is equally relevant to keep in mind that such facilities provided should not affect the rights of other citizens, who are otherwise qualified, meritorious and aspiring to participate in the open competitive process. The granting of relief, if it affects the Constitutional rights of other citizens, then the Courts must be slow in granting such relief.

39. In view of the discussions made above in relation to the facts of the case as well as the legal precedents settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by the Hon'ble Division Bench, this Court is of the opinion that the scope of compassionate appointment is to be restricted to the terms and conditions of scheme itself and the same cannot be stretched by the Courts, so as to provide appointment on compassionate ground. This apart, the delay is also a vital factor. The scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a reasonable period. Such being the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of the scheme, the grounds raised in this writ petition deserve no further consideration."

12. In the light of the revelations about the misconduct of the applicant, he fails to make out a case for compassionate appointment. The OA, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)

(Manish Garg) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

16.10.2026

/ps/

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA