om:67-cl-2021-june — Respondents herein are directed to re-consider the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment as GDS in terms of Circular, dated 30-5-2017 taking into account the consideration of guidelines of Secretary-cum-Director-General of Posts, New Delhi, R-1 herein and dispose of the case by a speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of this order

GDS Rules

Respondents herein are directed to re-consider the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment as GDS in terms of Circular, dated 30-5-2017 taking into account the consideration of guidelines of Secretary-cum-Director-General of Posts, New Delhi, R-1 herein and dispose of the case by a speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of this order — O.A. No. 426 of 2019 is an order directing respondents to reconsider a compassionate appointment application for a GDS position, submitted after the applicant's father's death in service, which was p... — Facts : Applicant's father died on 9-7-2012 while in service as GDS MD-cum-MC in Dainlo BO. Applicant filed an application for compassionate ground appointment as GDS for compassionate engagement which was rejected by Respondents by their order, dated 8-1-2018 (A/3) on the basis of the decision of the CRC meeting held on 23-5-2017. Applicant submitted a representation for re-consideration of his request. In this OA, the Applicant's case was considered only once and rejected as per the impugned order. Hence, Applicant prays to re-consider his case in the present OA.
M.A. No. 1042 of 2019 is submitted for condoning delay for not submitting OA within one year from the date of order, dated 8-1-2018 (A/3) by which his claim was rejected by the authorities. Applicant relies on the judgment of Tukaram Kanha Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others [ 2013 (1) SCC 353 ] to stress his case.
Respondents considered the case. It was stated that the case of the Applicant was rejected since he obtained 27 points out of the maximum of 100 which is less than 36 points required out of 100. The case cannot be re-opened.
Tribunal noted the filing of this OA on 24-6-2019 with a delay of five and half months from due date. Considering the fact that the Applicant has submitted a representation on 29-1-2019 which has not been denied by Respondents, the MA is allowed and delay in filing this OA is condoned.
Applicant request for compassionate appointment was denied as he secured 27 points to minimum of 36 points required for considering as deserving case. That reason has been mentioned in the order, dated 8-1-2018 (A/3). The Applicant's case was treated as settled by Respondents under circular, dated 30-5-2017(R/5) which cannot be re-considered.
The circular, dated 30-5-2017 (R/5) on the subject of "Review of the Scheme for engagement of a dependant of deceased Gramin Dak Sevak on compassionate grounds," dated 30-5-2017 issued by Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts is reproduced. By that circular, the point system has been dispensed with and it will be applicable for pending cases and the cases that will arise on or after the date of issue of the above circular. Settled and finalized cases will not be re-opened.
Tribunal is unable to agree with Respondents submission as settled as per circular, dated 30-5-2017 since CRC had decided the case on 23- 5-2017 and the decision was communicated on 8-1-2018 which implies that as on 30-5-2017, the decision of Applicant's case was not communicated to the Applicant. As the decision of GRC was not communicated to the Applicant as on 30-5-2017, his case cannot be treated as settled under the circular, dated 30-5-2017 (R/5 of the Counter). Hence, the Applicant's case needs re-consideration in accordance with the revised guidelines of the scheme of compassionate appointment for dependant of the deceased GDS vide circular, dated 30-5-2017 (R/5).
A similar issue namely, O.A. No. 321 of 2017, Smt. Bidyutprava Das and another v. Union of India and others disposed of on 7-8-2020 was considered. In this OA, application for compassionate appointment which was rejected on the ground of score less than minimum score required to be considered as hard and deserving case as per letter, dated 17-2-2015 which order was challenged by filing O.A. No. 321 of 2017. In that, the circular, dated 5-3-2020 Para. 2, 11 and 12 was reproduced.

GDS Rules

Respondents herein are directed to re-consider the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment as GDS in terms of Circular, dated 30-5-2017 taking into account the consideration of guidelines of Secretary-cum-Director-General of Posts, New Delhi, R-1 herein and dispose of the case by a speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of this order — O.A. No. 426 of 2019 is an order directing respondents to reconsider a compassionate appointment application for a GDS position, submitted after the applicant's father's death in service, which was p... — Facts : Applicant's father died on 9-7-2012 while in service as GDS MD-cum-MC in Dainlo BO. Applicant filed an application for compassionate ground appointment as GDS for compassionate engagement which was rejected by Respondents by their order, dated 8-1-2018 (A/3) on the basis of the decision of the CRC meeting held on 23-5-2017. Applicant submitted a representation for re-consideration of his request. In this OA, the Applicant's case was considered only once and rejected as per the impugned order. Hence, Applicant prays to re-consider his case in the present OA.
M.A. No. 1042 of 2019 is submitted for condoning delay for not submitting OA within one year from the date of order, dated 8-1-2018 (A/3) by which his claim was rejected by the authorities. Applicant relies on the judgment of Tukaram Kanha Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others [ 2013 (1) SCC 353 ] to stress his case.
Respondents considered the case. It was stated that the case of the Applicant was rejected since he obtained 27 points out of the maximum of 100 which is less than 36 points required out of 100. The case cannot be re-opened.
Tribunal noted the filing of this OA on 24-6-2019 with a delay of five and half months from due date. Considering the fact that the Applicant has submitted a representation on 29-1-2019 which has not been denied by Respondents, the MA is allowed and delay in filing this OA is condoned.
Applicant request for compassionate appointment was denied as he secured 27 points to minimum of 36 points required for considering as deserving case. That reason has been mentioned in the order, dated 8-1-2018 (A/3). The Applicant's case was treated as settled by Respondents under circular, dated 30-5-2017(R/5) which cannot be re-considered.
The circular, dated 30-5-2017 (R/5) on the subject of "Review of the Scheme for engagement of a dependant of deceased Gramin Dak Sevak on compassionate grounds," dated 30-5-2017 issued by Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts is reproduced. By that circular, the point system has been dispensed with and it will be applicable for pending cases and the cases that will arise on or after the date of issue of the above circular. Settled and finalized cases will not be re-opened.
Tribunal is unable to agree with Respondents submission as settled as per circular, dated 30-5-2017 since CRC had decided the case on 23- 5-2017 and the decision was communicated on 8-1-2018 which implies that as on 30-5-2017, the decision of Applicant's case was not communicated to the Applicant. As the decision of GRC was not communicated to the Applicant as on 30-5-2017, his case cannot be treated as settled under the circular, dated 30-5-2017 (R/5 of the Counter). Hence, the Applicant's case needs re-consideration in accordance with the revised guidelines of the scheme of compassionate appointment for dependant of the deceased GDS vide circular, dated 30-5-2017 (R/5).
A similar issue namely, O.A. No. 321 of 2017, Smt. Bidyutprava Das and another v. Union of India and others disposed of on 7-8-2020 was considered. In this OA, application for compassionate appointment which was rejected on the ground of score less than minimum score required to be considered as hard and deserving case as per letter, dated 17-2-2015 which order was challenged by filing O.A. No. 321 of 2017. In that, the circular, dated 5-3-2020 Para. 2, 11 and 12 was reproduced.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text