Compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The court emphasized the need for immediate appointment on compassionate grounds and highlighted that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed to quash the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00190/17 whereby and whereunder the decision taken by the respondent authority vide order dated 07.09.2016 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected, declined to interfere with by dismissing the original application.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition based upon the application filed before the learned Tribunal is required to be referred herein which reads as under;

3.1. The petitioner states that father of the petitioner was working as sub-postmaster at Mirja Chowki, Sub Post office and in course of employment father of the petitioner died in harness on 21.09.1996 and as such petitioner being the dependent submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 03.01.1997 which was kept pending and thereafter after bifurcation of the Jharkhand State the claim of the compassionate appointment made by the petitioner was rejected by letter dated 07.10.2013 on the sole ground that married son is not treated as dependent without mentioning the merit points secured by the petitioner.

3.2. The petitioner had filed O.A. No. 051/00096/2014 before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal and as a matter of fact the said O.A. has been allowed with a direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner again in the light of bare prevalent guideline and circular in the next circle relaxation committee meeting with a minding that there cannot be a distinction between a married son and a married daughter after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 as Class-1 heirs and as per the letter dated 14.01. 2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and I.T., Department of Post issued a circular to the effect that a married son can also be considered for compassionate appointment provided he was dependent on the parents for livelihood and of course, if he fulfils other required eligibility criteria.

3.3. That without considering the merit points as possessed by the petitioner at the time of the filing of the application for compassionate appointment i.e. in the year 1997 the Postal Department had considered the merit point of the petitioner as 46 out of 115 and stated that last selected candidates in P.A./SA, Postman and MTS Cadre were 64/115, 85/115 and 87/115 and rejected the application in term of order dated 07.09.2016.

3.4. When it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that merit points were not calculated by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) then petitioner sought an information under R.T.I. Act and it came to know that merit point was calculated in view of the new application dated 05.03.2011 instead of the old application for the compassionate appointment dated 03.01.1997 then the petitioner has submitted representation dated 13.09.2016 enclosing application dated 06.08.2016 and 21.10.2016 respectively to consider his claim.

3.5. The petitioner had again moved to the Hon’ble CAT in O.A. No. 051/00190/17 against the order dated 07.09.2016 with a ground that postal authorities had not considered the application dated 03.01.1997 as per policy existed on that time rather passed the impugned order 07.09.2016 as per new application dated 05.03.2011 without considering the earlier order passed by the CAT dated 09.11.2015 in O.A. No.051/00096/2014 order is against the principal of natural justice and is utter violation of existing rules and regulation of postal department and also violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India whereas CRC had considered the vacancy of the year 2015-16 when there is gross laches on the part of postal department for not considering the existing vacancy in the year 1997-98 when the application was made and rejected the cl