ups_00882 — The case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment whose father who worked as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster at Tambegadi Medha Branch Post office died while in service on 10-1-2014 was rejected on the ground that a married dependant cannot be considered for compassionate appointment as per rule existing at that time. Hence the case of the Applicant for compassionate ground appointment was rejected. But by letter, dated 14-1-2015, the rule was amended and even a married dependant can be

UPS

The case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment whose father who worked as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster at Tambegadi Medha Branch Post office died while in service on 10-1-2014 was rejected on the ground that a married dependant cannot be considered for compassionate appointment as per rule existing at that time. Hence the case of the Applicant for compassionate ground appointment was rejected. But by letter, dated 14-1-2015, the rule was amended and even a married dependant can be considered for compassionate ground appointment, provided that the dependants live with their parents and give written commitment to look after the surviving family members. In view of this ruling, dated 14-1-2015 the Tribunal directed the Respondents (P & T Officials) to reconsider the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment by Circle Relaxation Committee — Case regarding an applicant seeking compassionate appointment due to his father's death in service, initially rejected because of marriage status. However, rule change in January 2015 allowed married... — Facts : The Applicant who is the only son of the deceased (died on 10-1-2014), Shri Shalikrao Panduraj Kohake who worked in Postal Department as Gramin Dak Sevak, requested for compassionate appointment due to the death of his father who died while in service. Applicant is 12th Std. passed. Family received the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. Applicant got married on 22-5-2013. His application is rejected (vide order, dated 7-8-2014) as he was married as per the letter of Postal Directorate, dated 9-10-2013. Subsequently, the condition for compassionate appointment was relaxed and married son of an ex-employee has also been treated as eligible for compassionate appointment vide letter, dated 14-1-2015. The case of the Applicant was not re-considered even in view of the instruction in DoP&T's OM, dated 5-9-2016. Hence this OA is filed seeking to set aside the rejection of his case for employment as Gramin Dak Sevak on Compassionate Grounds. Applicant contends that his case was rejected for having got married based on the Directorate letter, dated 9-10-2013. However, that ruling had been reversed by letter, dated 14-1-2015 and even married dependant can be considered for compassionate appointment, provided he resides with grandparents / parents along with his wife and children for the livelihood of the family and he possesses required qualification including computer knowledge. Hence in view of the clarification issued by DoP&T, OM, dated 5-9-2016, the Applicant is eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment. Respondents agreed with the reclassification issued by the Directorate for grant of compassionate appointment even to married dependant with the ruling. The judgments recalls all events that had been said as above. Circle Relaxation Committee considered the case of the Applicant in its meeting but rejected earlier due to this ruling. Tribunal pursued the documents and came to the conclusion that the Applicant, a married son of the deceased can also be considered for compassionate appointment. Due to classification even to consider the case of married son issued by DoP&T vide OM, dated 5-9-2016 (A/8), the earlier stand taken by the Respondents to reject the case of the Applicant is not correct. Counsel for the Respondents quoted few earlier cases of the Apex Court to maintain their stand in not calling the Applicant for consideration even after the permission to grant compassionate appointment which are not relevant judgments in this case.

UPS

The case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment whose father who worked as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster at Tambegadi Medha Branch Post office died while in service on 10-1-2014 was rejected on the ground that a married dependant cannot be considered for compassionate appointment as per rule existing at that time. Hence the case of the Applicant for compassionate ground appointment was rejected. But by letter, dated 14-1-2015, the rule was amended and even a married dependant can be considered for compassionate ground appointment, provided that the dependants live with their parents and give written commitment to look after the surviving family members. In view of this ruling, dated 14-1-2015 the Tribunal directed the Respondents (P & T Officials) to reconsider the case of the Applicant for compassionate appointment by Circle Relaxation Committee — Case regarding an applicant seeking compassionate appointment due to his father's death in service, initially rejected because of marriage status. However, rule change in January 2015 allowed married... — Facts : The Applicant who is the only son of the deceased (died on 10-1-2014), Shri Shalikrao Panduraj Kohake who worked in Postal Department as Gramin Dak Sevak, requested for compassionate appointment due to the death of his father who died while in service. Applicant is 12th Std. passed. Family received the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. Applicant got married on 22-5-2013. His application is rejected (vide order, dated 7-8-2014) as he was married as per the letter of Postal Directorate, dated 9-10-2013. Subsequently, the condition for compassionate appointment was relaxed and married son of an ex-employee has also been treated as eligible for compassionate appointment vide letter, dated 14-1-2015. The case of the Applicant was not re-considered even in view of the instruction in DoP&T's OM, dated 5-9-2016. Hence this OA is filed seeking to set aside the rejection of his case for employment as Gramin Dak Sevak on Compassionate Grounds. Applicant contends that his case was rejected for having got married based on the Directorate letter, dated 9-10-2013. However, that ruling had been reversed by letter, dated 14-1-2015 and even married dependant can be considered for compassionate appointment, provided he resides with grandparents / parents along with his wife and children for the livelihood of the family and he possesses required qualification including computer knowledge. Hence in view of the clarification issued by DoP&T, OM, dated 5-9-2016, the Applicant is eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment. Respondents agreed with the reclassification issued by the Directorate for grant of compassionate appointment even to married dependant with the ruling. The judgments recalls all events that had been said as above. Circle Relaxation Committee considered the case of the Applicant in its meeting but rejected earlier due to this ruling. Tribunal pursued the documents and came to the conclusion that the Applicant, a married son of the deceased can also be considered for compassionate appointment. Due to classification even to consider the case of married son issued by DoP&T vide OM, dated 5-9-2016 (A/8), the earlier stand taken by the Respondents to reject the case of the Applicant is not correct. Counsel for the Respondents quoted few earlier cases of the Apex Court to maintain their stand in not calling the Applicant for consideration even after the permission to grant compassionate appointment which are not relevant judgments in this case.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text