Compassionate appointments provide immediate relief from sudden financial crisis post employee death; prolonged delays defeat purpose. Rejection after multiple non-selections under 3-review limit upheld as reasonable.

ORDER (ORAL)

PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

a) To quash the communication/ Endorsement in No. R&E/2- 5/CRC/2021 dated 24.05.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure- A11), in so far as the Applicant is concerned.

b) Consequently, pass any appropriate order, directing the respondents to appoint the Applicant on compassionate grounds with all consequential benefits.

c) Pass any other appropriate orders as this Tribunal deems fit to grant, in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in her pleadings, are as follows:

a) Applicant is an unemployed person. Her father namely Shri H.K. Shankaranarayana was an employee, i.e., Head Post Man in the Respondent Department, working in Head Post Office, Arasikere. He died while in service on 08.11.2012.

b) After the death of her father, the family was put to financial penury.

The family, having lost the sole bread winner was put to starvation. In the circumstances with the consent of all other family members, applicant submitted her application for appointment on compassionate grounds. In support of the application, applicant submitted all the documents relating to her educational qualifications, family bio-data etc.

c) After more than three years from the date of her representation / application, applicant received a communication from the office of the Chief Post Master General, Bangalore, dated 18.08.2016. It was informed that the Committee had met on 17.06.2016 and her case was not within the zone of selection. Hence, it had decided to refer her case to the next CRC for reconsideration. Applicant received a communication dated 27.11.2017, once again informing that the Committee met on 08.08.2017 and decided to refer her case to the next CRC for consideration. She received similar communications on 21.05.2020 & 02.09.2021.

d) On 24.05.2022 the 2^nd Respondent issued a common endorsement to the applicant and several others informing that her application is rejected. Her name is found at S1. No.29 in Annexure-I of the said communication. The Communication contains the reason: “Rejected as per Point No.5 of Directorate’s Letter No. 17-1/2022-SPG-II, dated 23-03-2022”.

e) The applicant has exhausted all her efforts and patience and having no other remedy she has filed this application for necessary relief/s. The Respondents have violated the very object of providing appointment on compassionate grounds by rejecting the application of the applicant. Her family is really in need of a support at this juncture. Applicant has produced all necessary documents in support of the application. She has substantiated the fact that her family has been deprived of sole bread earner, and the family is economically in a very bad condition. The application has to be considered by CRC (Circle Relaxation Committee). The recommendation of CRC has to be accepted by Competent Authority. The Competent Authority has to again consider all facts and circumstances.

f) In the present case, the Competent Authority has not considered the case at all. Immediately and only on the basis of decision of CRC, the impugned endorsement came to be issued. Therefore, it is arbitrary and bad in law. The impugned endorsement is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is totally a non-speaking endorsement.

3. The respondents have filed