Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi O.A. No.437/2021 This the 23rd day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Mohd. Farhan, S/o Late Anwar Ahmad, aged about 22 years, R/o Village and Post Dharampur District-

Bulandshahr, U.P.

…Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. Shoeb Shakeel with Mr. Raju Kumar) Versus

1. Union of India Through its Secretary Department of Telecom Services, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Postmaster General Uttar Pradesh Circle, Lucknow- 226001

3. The Superintendent of Posts Bulandshahr Division …Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar)

ORDER (ORAL)

In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“1. That the respondents may be directed to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds as per the rules;

2. That the. order of the respondent (Annexure A-1) for not recommendation of appointment may be set aside.

3. That any other benefit or relief which in the circumstances of the case deemed fit and proper be allowed to the applicant.

4. That the cost of the suit be awarded to the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-

2.1 The father of the applicant died in harness on 29.05.2015 while working as Mail Agent, EDDA at Dharampur (Dibai), District Bulandshahr, leaving behind his widow and three children, including the present applicant. It is contended that upon the sudden demise of the sole breadwinner, the family was left in acute financial distress, and therefore, the applicant sought appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the prevailing policy.

2.2 The case of the applicant was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) in its meetings held on 09.08.2018, 10.08.2018 and 11.08.2018.

However, the remark recorded was:

“Applicant needs to apply afresh as the age of the applicant is less than 18 years”

Learned counsel submits that that this remark was factually incorrect since his date of birth is 18.07.1998 and he had already attained the age of 18 years at the relevant time.

2.3 Subsequently, respondent no. 3 issued a letter dated 25.03.2019 directing the mother of the applicant to furnish an affidavit to the effect that the affidavit dated 25.07.2016 be treated as the date of application. The letter clearly records that:

“On the basis of Point 2 of abovementioned letter you again submit an application alongwith affidavit dated 25.07.2016 through Supdt. of Posts, Anupshahr to this office thereby mentioning in the same that the affidavit submitted on 25.07.2016 for the appointment of son Farhan should be treated as the date of application. On the said date the age of Farhan is 18 years and 07 days which is sufficient for application.”

Thus, the respondents themselves treated

25.07.2016 as the effective date of application and acknowledged that on that date the applicant had attained majority.

2.4 Thereafter, vide letter dated 09.07.2019, the applicant was intimated that his case was considered but not recommended for engagement on the following ground:

“Not recommended in view of not fulfilling the basic eligibility criteria circulated by Dte. Letter no. 17-02/2018-

GDS dated 08.03.2019.”

2.5 Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred representations dated 26.08.2019, 06.01.2020 and 05.03.2020, but no relief was granted, leading to the filing of the present O.A.

2.6 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the death of the employee occurred on 29.05.2015 and the respondents themselves treated 25.07.2016 as the date of application. It is contended that the rejection dated 09.07.2019 is based solely upon Directorate letter dated 08.03.2019, which lays down revised eligibility criteria. It is argued that the said circular cannot be applied retrospectively to a case relating to death in 2015 and the application treated as of 2016. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment is a benef