Limited compassionate appointments are allowed to maintain efficiency, and natural justice principles may not always necessitate a hearing.

JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

2. The applicant/petitioner’s father died in harness on 18.01.1998. It is the case of the applicant/petitioner that he was approved for an appointment on compassionate ground as a Postal Assistant way back in 2001. It is the petitioner’s case that thereafter he was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) on 28.04.2003. This appointment was given on compassionate grounds which he has accepted with objection. The petitioner while accepting such appointment raised a specific objection that since he was earlier approved for being appointed as a Postal Assistant he should be given an appointment as Postal Assistant and acceptance of the compassionate appointment as GDS cannot in any way be taken to be relinquishment of the petitioner’s claim for appointment as a Postal Assistant.

3. Having accepted the appointment in the year 2003 the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing of an Original Application. The Original Application was registered and numbered as O.A. No. 820 of 2011, and O.A. No. 819 in respect of petitioner of W.P.C.T. No. 246 of 2023. Before the Tribunal the respondent authorities placed on record some office memorandum and communications to submit that the authorities could only offer appointment on compassionate grounds to the limited extent of 5 per cent of the existing vacancies. Since as per law derived from various earlier judgments, the compassionate appointment being in exception to the rule, the authorities could not compromise on the efficiency of the institution by offering compassionate appointment against vacancies beyond and in excess of 5% of the total vacancies. The authorities as per the communications placed on record in the Original Application were thus faced with a circumstance where the waiting list for benefit of compassionate appointment was mounting and as a result depriving the persons who were already approved for appointment on compassionate ground. Since the compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden crisis arising from the loss of the bread earner. It was considered prudent by the authorities to offer appointment as GDS also, since such vacancies were in abundance. The authorities, therefore, took a policy decision to offer compassionate appointment also as GDS but subject to a consent being given by the person waiting in queue for compassionate appointment.

4. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the grounds raised by the authorities as well as the assertion made by the applicant/petitioner that though vacancies existed in the permanent establishment they were offered appointment as GDS. The Tribunal was not inclined to go into the issues whether vacancies existed more than a decade back when the applicant/petitioner had accepted appointment and, therefore, disposed of the Original Application. While disposing of the Original Application on 02.05.2016 the Tribunal was pleased to direct as follows:

“7. Hence, we are deciding this case in the following manner:-

That the appointment given to the applicant as GDS shall deemed to be in accordance with law unless it is demonstrated by them that in relevant year the vacancies were available and those vacancies may be filled by way of compassionate appointment in terms of the aforesaid letters of the Govt. of India issued both by DOP&T as well as the Postal authority. In case vacancies in terms of aforesaid letter referred hereinabove would be available at the relevant year to be filed by candidates seeking appointment on compassionate ground their claim may be considered for regular post.

8. In terms of the aforesaid direction all the three O.A.s are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

5. Under the circumstances