Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after a lapse of 19 years from the employee's death as its purpose is to provide immediate financial relief to the family, not a delayed benefit.

ORDER

1.PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A): Heard. Perused the pleadings in the OA, counter so also rejoinder and materials placed in support of thereof and the law relied on by the parties. The records bespeak and betoken as under:

a. Applicant No. 1 is the widow and applicant No.2 is the son of the deceased Postal Employee, Late Goura Chandra Mohanty, who while working as Asst. Post Master (APM), Bhubaneswar GPO, prematurely died on a road accident in October, 2006.

b. Compassionate appointment was sought in favour of applicant No.2 vide application dated 11.12.2006. According to respondents, as “various aspects” were incomplete in the application, his case was not considered in the year 2007. No CRC was conducted in 2008. The case of the applicant No.2 was considered by CRC on 03.11.2009 but his case was not recommended by the CRC since his indigent condition was not as indigent in comparison to others and, accordingly, the applicants were intimated the outcome of consideration in letter dated 24/25.11.2009.

c. The said order was challenged by the applicant before this Bench in OA No. 1112/2012, in which this Bench vide order dated 21.02.2013 quashed the order of rejection and _ directed for reconsideration of the case of the applicant No.2 as per DoP&T OM dated 05.05.2003.

d. In compliance of the order, his case was placed before the CRC held on 28.01.2014 but could not be considered since by that time he had got married and a married son is not entitled to compassionate appointment as per DoP&T Letter No. 14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 30.05.2013 and, such facts were intimated to the applicants in letter dated 14.02.2014.

e. Subsequently, the provision that the married son is not entitled for compassionate appointment was modified; for which the case of the applicant No.2 was reconsidered by the CRC held on 10.06.2019, 27.05.2020 and 09/10.06.2021. His case was not found indigent “in comparison to other candidates” as per Relative Merit Point System and was intimated to the applicants.

f. Applicants again filed OA No. 164/2023 before this Bench, which was disposed of on 10.04.2023 directing respondents to consider his application dated 04.03.2021. But, his application was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for consideration of his case fourth time and, that, his mother is getting adequate family pension vide letter dated 23.03.2022.

g. He again filed OA No. 584 of 2023 before this Bench, which was disposed of on 16.05.2024 with direction that the rejection of claim by taking into the family pension of the widow is bad in law and, the case of applicant No.2 needs reconsideration, which order was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 2311/2025 but the same was dismissed on 11.07.2025. h. In compliance of the order dated 16.05.2024 in OA No. 584 of 2023 of this Bench, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 11.07.2025 in W.P(C) No. 2311/2025, the case of the applicant No.2 was reconsidered and rejected in letter dated 05.08.2025 on the ground that the family of the deceased have their own two houses; one at Jaypurhat, Pipili, another at Plot No. 1540, Lane-9, Aerodrom Area, Bhubaneswar and 5 Acres of Agricultural land at Jaypurhat, Pipili and, that, the family has sustained their livelihood since 19 years and 9 months after the death of the deceased.

2. Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed this instant OA praying to quash the order of rejection dated 05.08.2025 and to direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant No.2 in the post of PA/SA or any Group-C post on compassionate ground. Respondents filed counter contesting and objecting the case of the applicant and the applicant has also fi