O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):

Shri Mohd. Wasim, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :

“ (i) Set aside the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by the respondents concerned.

(ii) Direct the respondent No.4 to consider the appointment of the applicant under the Dying in Harness Rules on compassionate ground in the light of O.M. issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter No.19(4)2015/D(Lab dt. 30.04.2015 till the financial distress of dependents of permanent Govt. employees.

(iii) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award cost of the application to the applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that father of the applicant namely Sri Niranjan Singh Yadav was a permanent employee of Air Force Station, Bareilly and died on 17.11.2006. On 21.05.2007, the mother of the applicant moved an application before the respondents for providing compassionate appointment to the applicant in place of her deceased husband. In response to the said application, the authority concerned sent a letter dated 22.5.2007 to the mother of the applicant seeking certain documents, which had been provided to the respondents by the mother of the applicant. The applicant joined as Casual Labour as LASCAR in the month of November 2007. It is submitted that when the applicant demanded for regular appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, in place of his father, the officer concerned continuously gave assurance that his services will be regularized under Dying in Harness Rules. Applicant was initially engaged as Bus Conductor in Air Force, Bareilly and was doing work as Bus Conductor from November 2007 to January 2012. The applicant has been attached to another work as Salesman from Jan. 2012 to till date in Unit Run Canteen, Air Force Station, Bareilly. Applicant moved an application dated 08.09.2008 to provide him compassionate appointment and on that application the order dated 18.3.2008 was passed by the respondents, wherein it was mentioned that since vacancy is less and applications are more, he could not be given compassionate appointment. Again the applicant moved an application before the respondent concerned to consider his case for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. Respondent concerned vide order dated 01.07.2016 rejected the claim of the applicant for providing him employment in Group-C post on compassionate grounds, on the ground that Screening Committee has considered 7 applications for the year 2015- 16 and case of the applicant is not coming in the merit for selection within the available number of vacancies owing to lower merit points (62). The applicant challenged the order dated 01.07.2016 before the Hon'ble Tribunal by filing O.A. No.100 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.05.2020. The operative portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under :-

“Therefore, it is clear that on 17.11.2006 when the father of applicant expired the merit points on which the case of applicant was considered and rejected by the respondents were not in existence but which came into existence in the year 2010. However, the respondents have not applied the scheme existing on 17.11.2006. Therefore, the impugned order dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure No.6) is quashed on the sole ground that the respondents took into consideration the scheme which came into existence after 2006 which is impermissible under law and set aside. Accordingly, the case is remitted back to the respondents to reconsider the case of applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of the scheme existing as on 17.11.2006 and decide the matter by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order with intimation to the applican