ups_00280 — Applicant (A-2) who was the son of Late Uma Shankar Singha who had expired while in service on 22-7-2009 prayed for compassionate ground appointment to him which was dismissed as he could not get the required points for appointing him on compassionate ground considering various aspects as per rule

Applicant (A-2) who was the son of Late Uma Shankar Singha who had expired while in service on 22-7-2009 prayed for compassionate ground appointment to him which was dismissed as he could not get the required points for appointing him on compassionate ground considering various aspects as per rule — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA No. 985 of 2013) seeking compassionate ground appointment for the son of a deceased employee, Uma Shankar Singha, who died while in service in July ... — Facts: There are two Applicants in this OA. They are wife and son of Late Shri Uma Shankar Singha who died while in service as GDSMC, Bhandarikuli B.O. on 22-7-2009. Earlier, Applicant No. 2 filed O.A. No. 65/2012 for compassionate ground appointment which was disposed of on 21-11-2012 directing the Respondents therein to consider the case of the Applicants two more times as per Circular, dated 5-5-2003. That was rejected by the Respondents by order, dated 23-12-2011 to appoint the Applicant on compassionate grounds. Hence he filed this OA praying for quashing the order, dated 23-12-2011 and the order, dated 26-8-2015 (A-9) rejecting the application for compassionate appointment and to direct the Respondents to consider Applicant No. 2 in any GDS post. Applicant filed this application mainly for getting some income as his late father left no tangible benefit to his family of wife (A-1), son (A-2) and a sister and living with A-1 & A-2. The main reason for Respondents to reject the claim of the Applicant for compassionate appointment in his late father's place is that, the merit points obtained by him is very much less than 50 points. Tribunal recalled the decisions in his earlier OA and Apex Court and also rejection for granting him compassionate appointments. Grant of compassionate appointment has been extensively dealt with in a catena of judicial pronouncements. Tribunal noted all those judgments and recalled the judicial pronouncements. As those judgments had been known, it is not necessary to repeat the decisions in those catena of judgments. Keeping in mind those judgments, it is noted that only 5% of direct recruit posts can be filled by compassionate appointments. Criteria for compassionate appointment include the level of indigence of the family, family pension, terminal benefits, monthly income, number of earning members and income from property, extent of movable/immovable property, number of dependants, number of unmarried daughters, number of minor children and left-over service of the deceased employee. Applicants were of the view that their case is deserving and A-2 will get compassionate appointment. Time-limit for compassionate appointment is removed by DoP&T's OM, dated 26-7-2012, Applicant's ground for granting him compassionate appointment is his score of 52 points which is wrongly stated as 39 by Respondents. Extra points on account of his widowed sister and her son being dependent on him had not been noted by the Respondents. Dependent family members is categorized in DoP&T's OM, dated 16-1-2013 which is reproduced in the judgment.