ups_00204 — Applicant, 30 years old, son of one Late Sudhakar Tripathi, who died while in service as Branch Postmaster at Branch Post Office, Mathura Rasoolpur, applied for grant of compassionate appointment due to the death of his father who was a Government servant which was denied on the ground of his brothers and himself being earning members proved by their certificates, the total income of the family coming to ₹ 12,000 per month and the family possessing own house and agricultural land. As the

Applicant, 30 years old, son of one Late Sudhakar Tripathi, who died while in service as Branch Postmaster at Branch Post Office, Mathura Rasoolpur, applied for grant of compassionate appointment due to the death of his father who was a Government servant which was denied on the ground of his brothers and himself being earning members proved by their certificates, the total income of the family coming to ₹ 12,000 per month and the family possessing own house and agricultural land. As the case is closed by earlier order, the Tribunal held that the case of the Applicant cannot be opened by the new scheme of 2017 by which the allocation mark system was abolished and the earlier order passed rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment stands — The given chunk is a part of a court case, O.A. No. 332/00416 of 2015, involving an applicant seeking a compassionate appointment due to his father's death while serving as Branch Postmaster. The cas... — Facts: Father of the Applicant who worked as Branch Postmaster, Branch Post Office, died while working on the post leaving behind his wife and three sons. Applicant is one of the sons of the deceased. All of them agreed to submit application by the Applicant for compassionate appointment. Yearly income of the Applicant is ₹ 36,000, Applicant had also some experience as Computer Operator having worked in the P.O. without being paid. The application of the Applicant for compassionate appointment was denied by Order, dated 3-12-2012, a copy of which is enclosed. Earlier he filed an OA as his application for compassionate appointment was partly allowed and to place the matter of compassionate appointment of the Applicant before the next CRC meeting to be convened for considering his case along with others who had applied for compassionate appointment. In that meeting, the case of the Applicant was rejected as his financial condition was enough so as not to appoint him on compassionate ground. In the Memo, dated 7-5-2014, the reason for rejection of his case was noted. Government by its Order, dated 27-4-2017 revamped jobs on compassionate ground appointment for Gramin Dak Sevak and that order is reproduced. Mainly in the new procedure, the existing system of relative merit points to ascertain degree of indigence has been dispensed with. Thenceforth, a request received for compassionate appointment would be considered and decided within three months from the date of receipt of the application. The above said procedure is reproduced in the judgment. Initially the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment was considered based on the scheme, dated 9-3-2012 wherein the case of the Applicant was rejected. Details of that case of rejection is brought out for information. The full text as per memo of rejection, dated 31-1-2014 is reproduced. On perusal of record, the Tribunal found that no point for educational qualification was allocated to the Applicant. The scheme of 2012 with its relevant points is noted in Para. 17 of the judgment. Finally, the case of the Applicant was rejected on the ground that four dependants of the Applicants are earning members whose certificates are submitted by the Applicant. As such, total income of the family comes to ₹ 12,000 per month. Applicant also is in possession of own house and agricultural land enjoyed by the whole family. Further it was also held: