om:28-cl-2021-Mar — The case of the Applicant for his compassionate ground appointment should be considered giving reasonable opportunity to the Applicant informing the Applicant of the departmental guidelines, dated 13-1-2016 for compassionate appointment and the details of merit point assigned to the Applicant within four weeks. Permission is given to the Applicant to file a representation to R-2, Chief Postmaster-General, Odisha Circle, if he disagrees with the merit points given to him and the authorities to di

GDS Rules

The case of the Applicant for his compassionate ground appointment should be considered giving reasonable opportunity to the Applicant informing the Applicant of the departmental guidelines, dated 13-1-2016 for compassionate appointment and the details of merit point assigned to the Applicant within four weeks. Permission is given to the Applicant to file a representation to R-2, Chief Postmaster-General, Odisha Circle, if he disagrees with the merit points given to him and the authorities to dispose of the representation and communicate the decision within 4 months from the date of receipt of that representation — The given chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA No. 457 of 2019) filed by the Applicant seeking a compassionate appointment in the Department, as his father served there until his death in 20... — Facts : Applicant files this OA for granting compassionate appointment as his father served in the department as casual labourer under R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Puri Division and continued as such till his death on 8-10-2001. Approaching the Tribunal by his mother for regularization of her late husband and grant of family pension was rejected. But challenging that order in High Court, the request of his late mother was allowed with the direction to the Respondent to consider regularization of his father which was rejected. When the case was rejected, the decision was challenged in Tribunal which directed the Respondents to regularize the service of Applicant's father from the date his junior was regularized and grant pensionary benefits. Direction was also given to consider the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment. R-3 considered the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment and rejected the claim vide impugned order, dated 21-6-2019 (A/4) which is challenged by the four grounds as mentioned in the judgment.
The case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment is stated to be non-availability of vacancy and 3 vacancies available for filling up by compassionate appointment was filled as per rule and the Applicant standing as 4th person for considering his appointment was rejected due to non-availability of vacancy in compassionate ground appointment quota for the post of Postman.
Tribunal considered the case after hearing both sides. On perusal of pleading as well as submission made on behalf of both parties, the question for decision in this case is, whether the Applicant's case for compassionate appointment is to be decided as per guidelines in force as on 8-10-2001 (as submitted by the Applicant) or as per guidelines, dated 13-1-2016 which has been applied by Respondents while rejecting the claim of the Applicant for compassionate appointment.
The observation of the Tribunal while adjudicating the O.A. No. 726 of 2011 and allowed vide Order, dated 12-10-2017 (A/2) with observation vide Para. 3 of that judgment is reproduced. From that judgment, it is clear to grant other ancillary benefits like compassionate appointment to the Applicant, if he is otherwise eligible as per departmental norms. His status of his father in the department was regularized with effect from 29-11-1992 vide order at A/3 of the OA.
The issue of applicability of the rules on compassionate ground as on the date of death of his father was considered by Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and others, in the Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-9281 of 2014. The law laid down by Apex Court is that, the claim of compassionate appointment is to be considered in accordance with the norms prevailing as on the date of consideration for such compassionate appointment and not as per norms prevailing as on the day of death of the concerned employee.
In view of the above norms, the case of compassionate appointment is to be considered on the date of consideration of the application for appointment. Respondents' action to consider the Applicant's case in the light of norms and guidelines as per Order, dated 12-10-2017 of the Tribunal cannot be faulted and the question as framed above is decided accordingly.
The guidelines for grant of compassionate appointment is not furnished to the Applicant. If these details are known to the Applicant, he would have got an opportunity to inform the authorities, whether his case has been considered by assigning the merit point correctly as per the guidelines of the Respondents. By not communicating such details, Respondents have not allowed a reasonable opportunity to the Applicant to place his case before the authorities in accordance with the extant guidelines on compassionate appointment.

GDS Rules

The case of the Applicant for his compassionate ground appointment should be considered giving reasonable opportunity to the Applicant informing the Applicant of the departmental guidelines, dated 13-1-2016 for compassionate appointment and the details of merit point assigned to the Applicant within four weeks. Permission is given to the Applicant to file a representation to R-2, Chief Postmaster-General, Odisha Circle, if he disagrees with the merit points given to him and the authorities to dispose of the representation and communicate the decision within 4 months from the date of receipt of that representation — The given chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA No. 457 of 2019) filed by the Applicant seeking a compassionate appointment in the Department, as his father served there until his death in 20... — Facts : Applicant files this OA for granting compassionate appointment as his father served in the department as casual labourer under R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Puri Division and continued as such till his death on 8-10-2001. Approaching the Tribunal by his mother for regularization of her late husband and grant of family pension was rejected. But challenging that order in High Court, the request of his late mother was allowed with the direction to the Respondent to consider regularization of his father which was rejected. When the case was rejected, the decision was challenged in Tribunal which directed the Respondents to regularize the service of Applicant's father from the date his junior was regularized and grant pensionary benefits. Direction was also given to consider the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment. R-3 considered the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment and rejected the claim vide impugned order, dated 21-6-2019 (A/4) which is challenged by the four grounds as mentioned in the judgment.
The case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment is stated to be non-availability of vacancy and 3 vacancies available for filling up by compassionate appointment was filled as per rule and the Applicant standing as 4th person for considering his appointment was rejected due to non-availability of vacancy in compassionate ground appointment quota for the post of Postman.
Tribunal considered the case after hearing both sides. On perusal of pleading as well as submission made on behalf of both parties, the question for decision in this case is, whether the Applicant's case for compassionate appointment is to be decided as per guidelines in force as on 8-10-2001 (as submitted by the Applicant) or as per guidelines, dated 13-1-2016 which has been applied by Respondents while rejecting the claim of the Applicant for compassionate appointment.
The observation of the Tribunal while adjudicating the O.A. No. 726 of 2011 and allowed vide Order, dated 12-10-2017 (A/2) with observation vide Para. 3 of that judgment is reproduced. From that judgment, it is clear to grant other ancillary benefits like compassionate appointment to the Applicant, if he is otherwise eligible as per departmental norms. His status of his father in the department was regularized with effect from 29-11-1992 vide order at A/3 of the OA.
The issue of applicability of the rules on compassionate ground as on the date of death of his father was considered by Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka and others, in the Civil Appeal Nos. 9280-9281 of 2014. The law laid down by Apex Court is that, the claim of compassionate appointment is to be considered in accordance with the norms prevailing as on the date of consideration for such compassionate appointment and not as per norms prevailing as on the day of death of the concerned employee.
In view of the above norms, the case of compassionate appointment is to be considered on the date of consideration of the application for appointment. Respondents' action to consider the Applicant's case in the light of norms and guidelines as per Order, dated 12-10-2017 of the Tribunal cannot be faulted and the question as framed above is decided accordingly.
The guidelines for grant of compassionate appointment is not furnished to the Applicant. If these details are known to the Applicant, he would have got an opportunity to inform the authorities, whether his case has been considered by assigning the merit point correctly as per the guidelines of the Respondents. By not communicating such details, Respondents have not allowed a reasonable opportunity to the Applicant to place his case before the authorities in accordance with the extant guidelines on compassionate appointment.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text