Central Administrative Tribunal
Sashikala Das Adhikari vs DEPARTMENT OF POST on 9 November 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH
OA No. 675 of 2022
Reserved on :06.11.2026 Pronounced on :09.11.2026
Corum : Hon’ble Mr.SudhiRanjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon’ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
1. Sashikala Das Adhikari, aged about 93 years, W/o Late Sasanka Sekhar Das Adhikari.
2. Jeeban Jyoti Das Adhikari, aged about 25 years, S/o Jeeban Krusha Das Adhikari.
Both are of Vill/PO: Dhansimulia, PS Jaleswar, Dist Balasore – 756084.
……Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its Director General of Posts, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Chief
Postmaster General
Odisha Circle,
Bhubaneswar, Dist Khurda, PIN 751001.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Balasore Division, Balasore – 756001.
……Respondents
For the applicant
:
Mr. D K Mohanty, counsel
For the respondents:
Mr. S K Pradhan, counsel
Kalpeswar
Behera
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Mr.Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member, J.M.
The applicant challenging the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of employment under Compassionate quota has filed this OA praying for following reliefs: a) To direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants and provide compassionate appointment to the applicant No. 2 in accordance with the DoP&T Instruction as stated above. b) To pass any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper.
2. The fact of the case as inter alia averred stated by the applicant in the OA is that she is the mother of deceased employee i.e. late Bijay Krushna Das Adhikari who while working as GDSMD, Dhansimulia SO under Jaleswar HO expired on 16.11.2019 leaving behind applicant no 1 and applicant no. 2 who is adopted son of the deceased. It is submitted that Respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 27.11.2019 to the applicant to avail the facilities for compassionate appointment and applicant no 1 made representation dated 20.09.2021
Kalpeswar Behera submitting all the documents for grant of compassionate appointment in favour of applicant no. 2. It is submitted that respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 14.12.2020 asked to submit the legal documents in support of adopted son and the legal heir certificate mentioning the name of applicant no. 2. It is submitted that applicant no. 1 made representation dated 26.12.2020 enclosing the agreement of adopted son by her deceased son to Respondent No. 2 praying therein to provide employment under compassionate quota. Since no action was taken the applicants have filed this OA.
3. The respondents have filed counter inter alia averring that after the death of late employee, applicant no. 1 was intimated to avail facilities for compassionate appointment to one eligible dependent of deceased GDS. It is submitted that as per legal heir certificate dated 28.08.2020 issued by the office of Tahasildar, Jaleswar, the applicant no. 1 is the only one legal heir. It is submitted that documents supplied by the applicant was forwarded to Inspector of Posts on 21.09.2020 who vide his letter dated 05.10.2020 returned the documents after verifying with the original due to non production of legal heir certificate. It is submitted that applicant no. 1 was requested vide letter dated
Kalpeswar Behera
19.10.2020 for applying for payment of ex-gratia and severance allowance etc but instead for applying for payment of terminal benefits the applicant no. 1 submitted four set of formal application along with synopsis paper in Annexure 2 for appointment of applicant no. 2 directly to the office of Respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the same were forwarded again to Inspector of Posts who after detailed inquiry submitted his inquiry report dated 16.11.2020 mentioning that as per legal heir certificate applicant no. 1 is only one dependent of deceased employee and therefore Ex-Gratia Gratuity was paid to the applicant no. 1 on 29.12.2020. It is submitted that vide letter dated 14.12.2020 the applicant no. 1 was requested to submit legal documents in favor of applicant no. 2 who is purported to be adopted son of deceased GDS. It is submitted that applicant no. 1 vide her representation dated nil received at the office of Respondent No. 3 on 05.04.2021 stated that the applicant no. 2 was not legally adopted by the deceased GDS. It is submitted that the said application was forwarded for consideration of CRC and CRC meeting dated 09.08.2021 wherein the case of applicant no. 2 was not recommended since there was no legal heir certificate or legal documents. It is submitted that as per
Kalpeswar Behera direction of this Tribunal in this OA the representation of the applicant was disposed of rejecting her case and the same was communicated to her vide order dated 03.07.2023.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. The applicant in the OA has filed an affidavit to prove that the adoption has been done on 10.04.2004. An affidavit or notarized document cannot be said to be legally valid for adoption. The name of applicant no. 2 does not figure in the legal heir certificate. Further the applicant no. 1 in her representation at Annexure R/5 has also stated that the applicant no. 2 was not adopted by Late Bijay Krushna as adopted son but he had accepted him as his on with the consent of Jeeban Jyoti’s parent.
6. Therefore in view of the above, we do not find any illegality on the part of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicants. Accordingly the OA stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending MAs, if any, stands disposed of. No costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Kalpeswar Behera