DEEPAK VERMA vs DEPTT OF POSTS on 30 October 2026

ORDER

​ Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.

2. ​ Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 13.10.2018 passed by the respondent

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./41/2024

no.2 (Annexure No.A-1 and A-2 to this Original Application with compilation No.I).

(ii) ​ This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to review the merit point of the applicant for CRC 2016-17 in terms of 6th CPC and further review the CRC of 2017-18, 2018-19 and onwards after including the name of applicant and offer him suitable compassionate appointment so that the applicant may fulfil the livelihood of the family members.

(iii) ​ Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iv) ​ Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. ​ Brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant while working as Assistant Post Master (SBSO) Nawabganj Kanpur died on 08.01.2015. On 25.06.2015, the wife of the deceased (applicant no.2) submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment to applicant no.1. After fulfilling the requisite formalities and submitting the documents, the applicant no.1 was considered for compassionate appointment in CRC 2016-17 but he could not be selected. He was informed vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2018 that he secured only 41 merit points against 52 cut off merit points secured by the selected candidate, therefore, he could not be recommended for compassionate appointment.

4. ​ Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the merit point awarded to the applicant was as per 7th CPC while it should have been as per the 6th CPC. He further argued that the applicant has not been awarded the marks as per his entitlement and said that, for instance, should have been awarded 18 points out of 20 in respect of family pension but he was awarded only 6 points. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant was not called for the subsequent two CRCs and candidates who secured lesser merit points than what the applicant secured for the CPC 2016-17 were selected for appointment in the subsequent CPC of 2017-18 and 2018-19. He argued that had the applicant been called for the subsequent CPC, he would have been selected

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./41/2024

as per his merit points. Therefore, prayer was made to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant no.1 for compassionate appointment in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 CPC as per his rightful merit points.

5. ​ Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the applicant no.1 was duly considered by the CRC in its meeting held on 27.09.2018 and 28.09.2018 for 2016-17 but the applicant no.1 got only 41 merit points whereas the last recommended candidate got 52 points, therefore, he could not be recommended for appointment. He further argued that the claim of the applicant regarding entitlement for higher merit points in respect of family pension is baseless as he has been correctly granted the points as per the provisions in the instructions/guidelines regarding the matter. It is also argued that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. As a rule appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and no other mode of appointment. Therefore, it is argued that there is no merit in the O.A. and the same may be dismissed.

6. ​ I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.

7. ​ The candidature of the applicant no.1 has been considered by the respondents but he could not be appointed on compassionate grounds due to obtaining lower merit points than the last selected candidate for CRC 2016-17. The applicants have requested to direct the respondents to consider him for the subsequent CRC of 2017-18 and 2018-19 as per his merit points. The relief claimed by the applicants is not liable to be allowed since by the time the O.A. was filed in the year 2024, the appointment pursuant to the CRC held for 2017-18 and 2018-19 had long been finalized which cannot be unsettled at this stage. However, taking into account the prayer of the applicant for being reconsidered for compassionate appointment, the O.A. is hereby disposed of with the direction to

MADHU KUMARI

O.A./41/2024

the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment in the next CRC meeting in accordance with rules/guidelines regarding the matter.

8. ​ All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

( Justice Om Prakash VII) ​ ​ ​ Member (J) Madhu​​ ​

MADHU KUMARI