CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00090 of 2024 Dated, this 20th day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Deepak Nath, aged about 34 years, son of Late Shri Ram Pravesh Prasad, Resident of 65-B, Atal Road Saudagar Mohal Sadar Cantt, Lucknow.

…..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar VERSUS

1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence Government of India, South Block, New Delhi-110011.

2. Director General, Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence, Directorate General Defence Estate, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulaanbatar Marg, Delhi Cantt-110010.

3. Principal Director, Defence Estates, Central Command, 17-

Carriapa Road, Lucknow Cantt-226002.

4. Defence Estates Officer, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow-226002.

…..Respondent By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to compassionate appointment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(1) To quash the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this OA), with all consequential benefits.

(2) To offer posting on the post of MTS, with all consequential benefits.

(3) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

(4) Cost of the present case.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant’s father, Ram Pravesh Prasad, died in harness on 08.12.2015, leaving behind the applicant and his three brothers and two sisters, and his mother. When the request of the applicant’s mother for the applicant’s appointment on compassionate ground did not elicit positive response, the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 351 of 2017 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2017 directing the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim. The applicant’s claim was rejected by the respondents vide their order dated 11.06.2018. The applicant, then, approached this Tribunal in OA No. 172 of 2019 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2023 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant in light of office memorandum (OM) dated 11.12.2009 or on the post of MTS. The respondents again rejected the applicant’s claim vide their order dated 08.11.2023.

Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant states that the respondents had rejected his claim earlier vide order dated 11.06.2018 on the ground that there was no vacancy in MTS for appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the respondents considered the applicant’s case for appointment to the post of UDC, but observed that he did not possess requisite qualification, i.e., degree from recognized university, for that post. He further states that by means of the subsequent order dated 08.11.2023, the respondents have rejected his claim on the ground that if educational qualification is not satisfied, one can be offered appointment on compassionate ground in exceptional circumstances, but in the present case no such exceptional circumstances exist to invoke the relaxation clause of OM dated 11.12.2009. The applicant contends that the order dated 08.11.2023 suffers from non-application of mind as he has the requisite educational qualification for the post of MTS even if he does not have the requisite educational qualification for the post of UDC and so the respondents could not have taken the ground of the exception clause in OM dated 11.12.2009 to deny him the post of MTS and that the respondents have failed to assign any good ground for not considering his claim for the post of MTS and that the respondents have merely replicated their earlier order dated 11.06.2018 which had already been quashed by this Tribunal vide its order dated

28.04.2023.

4. Per contra, the respondents state that while reconsidering the applicant’s case for appointment on compassionate ground in compliance to this Tribunal’s order dated 28.04.2023, n