(Oral Order)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad ****

Original Application No.403/2024 This is the 12^th Day of November, 2025.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)

Rajendra Yadav aged about 22 years Son of Late Hardev Yadav, Ex. GDS ABPM, Dughara, Urua Bazar, Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh.

………..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Shailesh Upadhyay Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of posts, Ministry of Communications New Delhi.

2. Chief Post Master General, Uttar Pradesh Circle Lucknow 226001.

3. Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur 273001.

……… Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey

O R D E R

Heard Shri Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, perused the pleadings available on record and also considered the revial submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties at the time of argument.

2. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking issuance of a direction to Respondent No.4 to take an appropriate decision and issue an order of engagement in favour of the applicant on compassionate grounds in terms of the communication dated 18.01.2023.

3. The brief facts, as emerging from the pleadings, are that the father of the applicant, Late Hardev Yadav, who was working as GDS (ABPM), Dughra, Urua Bazar, Gorakhpur Division, died in harness on 31.05.2020. He left behind his widow and children, including the applicant. The death of the sole bread earner caused acute financial distress to the family, compelling the applicant to apply for compassionate engagement as per the applicable scheme.

4. The record indicates that the Committee for Compassionate Engagement (CCE), in its meeting held on 09.01.2023, duly recommended the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment. Pursuant thereto, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Gorakhpur Division, issued a communication dated 09.02.2023 directing the DAK Nirikshak, Urua, to take necessary further steps for engagement. Despite such clear recommendation and administrative direction, no consequential action was taken by the competent authority, compelling the applicant to submit reminders and eventually approach this Tribunal.

5. The respondents, while filing their counter affidavit, have not disputed the fact of recommendation made by the CCE. Their sole objection is based on the ground that a criminal case, being Case Crime No. 22/2017 under Section 506 IPC, stands pending against the applicant and as per the departmental guidelines, a person with a pending criminal case cannot be considered for compassionate engagement.

6. The applicant, however, has placed on record a copy of the Final Report dated 26.07.2018 filed by the Investigating Officer, wherein it was categorically concluded that no offence was made out against him. It is only after a lapse of nearly five years that the informant appears to have filed a protest petition, which the Court below treated as a complaint case. The record further reveals that even after issuance of notice, the complainant has failed to appear before the Court for recording his statement under Section

200 Cr.P.C., resulting in the proceedings remaining dormant.

7. In the considered view of this Tribunal, a complaint case arising after acceptance of a Final Report, that too lying dormant for want of prosecution, cannot be treated at par with a criminal proceeding which attains the stage of framing of charge or trial. In the absence of any prima facie material establishing criminal involvement, the pendency of such a complaint case cannot be treated as an absolute bar for appointment, especially in a matter concerning compassionate engagement where the objective is to provide immediate succour to a bereaved family.

8. It is also noteworthy that the applicant was a minor at the time of the alleged i