Ku Preeti Tiwari vs D/o Postal on 6 November 2026

O R D E R

The applicant is challenging the order dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure A- 1), whereby her case for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected by the respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant died in harness on 03.11.2016 while working on the post of Postal Assistant. After death of her father, the mother of the applicant submitted an application on 24.02.2017 (Annexure A-5) requesting the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to her. However, vide communication dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure A-1), the applicant was apprised that after consideration of her case by the circle level committee, she was not found suitable for appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant submits that the respondents have not disclosed the marks obtained by her vis-à-vis the marks secured by other selected candidates. Further, no reason has been assigned while rejecting her case.

3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the terminal benefits of Rs.31 lakhs have been paid to the family and the family is also getting Rs.29300/- per month as family pension. The application from the applicant was received on 24.02.2017 along with 9 other candidates. All were placed

ANUPAM MISHRA

before the CRC on 17.10.2018 against the 6 vacancies for appointment on compassionate grounds for the year 2017/2018. The applicant secured only 28 points, whereas the last selected candidate got 36 merit points. Hence, she has not been recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.

5. The counsel for the applicant has submitted that along with their reply, the respondents have filed a special check list (Annexure R-1), wherein the break-up of points allotted to the applicant under the various heads have been mentioned. Under the head ‘Terminal benefits’, an amount of Rs.3167756/- has been shown to be paid as terminal benefits for which 0 points have been awarded to her. However, as per the documents filed at Annexure A-3, the family has received an amount of Rs.19,42,476/- towards Death Gratuity. Similarly, under the head, ‘monthly income of earning members and income from property’, the amount of Rs.7000/- per month has been mentioned and no points have been awarded to the applicant, whereas in Page 11 of the reply, the applicant has declared that the annual income of the family is Rs.24000/- only. He has also submitted

ANUPAM MISHRA

that there is manipulation in the points allotted to the applicant, which is evident from the overwriting done in Annexure R-1.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has stated that there were only six vacancies to be filled under the limited quota for compassionate appointment for the year 2017-2018. Against these six vacancies, 9 persons were considered. He has filed the minutes of the meeting of CRC held on 17.10.2018 (Annexure R-3), wherein the marks allotted to all the 9 persons have been given. The applicant was placed at Sr. No.9. Due to the marks (28) allotted to her, she has not been recommended for want of availability of vacancies in the cadre of PA/SA, Postman/Mail Guard and MTS as the persons securing higher merit points than the applicant have been recommended for appointment for these posts.

7. Admittedly, the father of the applicant died on 03.11.2016 and her mother submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 24.02.2017. The said application was considered by the CRC in it’s meeting held on 17.10.2018 along with the applications of nine other candidates. Against the six vacancies available for the relevant vacancy year, the CRC assessed the comparative merit of all the candidates and awarded 28 points

ANUPAM MISHRA

to the applicant. The minutes of the meeting (Annexure R-3) clearly indicate the marks awarded to all nine candidates and the applicant was placed at Serial No.9. It is thus evident that the applicant's case was not rejected without consideration. Rather, her case was duly considered by the CRC along with other similarly situated candidates. The fact that she secured fewer merit points than the candidates recommended for appointment is apparent from the minutes of the CRC.

8. As regards the discrepancy pointed out by the applicant’s counsel concerning her terminal benefits, it is observed that the amount of Rs.19,42,476/- mentioned in Annexure A-3 is specific to towards Death Gratuity, whereas the amount of Rs.31,67,756/- mentioned in the special checklist is the total terminal benefits received by the family which includes other admissible retiral dues as well. Therefore, merely because the amount of Death Gratuity is less than the total amount mentioned in the checklist, it cannot be inferred that the respondents have manipulated the assessment or have deliberately awarded incorrect points. Similarly, the applicant has referred to the amount of Rs.24,000/- declared as annual family income, whereas the special checklist mentions her monthly income as Rs.7,000/-. It is required to be appreciated that the assessment of financial circumstances

ANUPAM MISHRA

under the compassionate appointment scheme is not confined merely to the declaration made by the applicant but has to be undertaken on the basis of the relevant income particulars and supporting documents available with the department. The mere difference in the figures mentioned in the application and the assessment checklist would not be sufficient to invalidate the entire exercise undertaken by the CRC. The applicant has not brought on record any cogent material demonstrating that the figures recorded in the checklist were deliberately inflated or that the prescribed criteria has been applied differently in her case as compared to the other candidates. Mere suspicion or an allegation of manipulation, unsupported by material particulars, cannot be a ground for setting aside the decision of a duly constituted committee. The applicant secured 28 points, whereas the last candidate recommended for appointment secured 36 points. In the circumstances, the decision not to recommend the applicant against the limited number of available vacancies cannot be said to be arbitrary merely because she did not get selected.

9. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of recruitment or a matter of right. It is an exception to the general rule of recruitment through open competition and is intended to provide

ANUPAM MISHRA

immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who is left in indigent circumstances. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of its breadwinner. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle a dependent to compassionate appointment. The competent authority is required to examine the financial condition of the family and determine whether the family is in such a position that it cannot meet the crisis without employment assistance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered as a matter of course or after the financial crisis has ceased to exist.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure A-1). The Original Application, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Mallika Arya)

Administrative Member

am/-

ANUPAM MISHRA