A remand order for fresh consideration does not trigger res judicata for a subsequent challenge to the resulting decision. Decisions on compassionate appointments must be reasoned, speaking orders supported by objective evaluation criteria, such as merit point charts, rather than mechanical rejections.

(Reserved on 19.08.2026)

ORDER

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 09/17.03.2021 (Annexure No. 1).

(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment.

(iii) To issue order or direction to the respondent to appoint the applicant on any suitable post.

(iv) To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

(v) To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Late Shri Mohan Lal Yadav, father of the applicant, rendered about 33 years of continuous service and was working against a substantive vacancy. He was granted the regular pay scale and all service benefits applicable to a Group-D/MTS employee. In the year 2013, the respondents issued an order regarding promotion in the MTS cadre and sought consent, which was duly submitted by the applicant’s father. Late Shri Mohan Lal Yadav died in an accident while in service, as established by the newspaper report, post-mortem report and death certificate. He was the sole earning member of the family. After his death, the family was left in severe financial distress and had no sufficient source of livelihood except about two biswa of land owned by the applicant’s mother. The applicant submitted several representations seeking compassionate appointment. In compliance with the order passed in O.A. No. 938/2015, the respondents passed an MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA order dated 23.11.2015, which was challenged in O.A. No. 349/2016. The Tribunal, vide judgment dated 07.03.2018, set aside the order dated 23.11.2015 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondents informed that the applicant’s case would be considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee and later sought his willingness for appointment as GDS at any place. The applicant gave his consent without any objection. However, despite the applicant’s financial condition and willingness, the respondents rejected his claim vide impugned order dated 17.03.2021. The impugned order is non-speaking and mechanical, as it does not properly consider the family’s financial hardship, the long service of the deceased employee, his accidental death while in service, and the directions issued earlier by the Tribunal. Therefore, the applicant’s case deserves sympathetic and lawful consideration.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, stating therein that the father of the applicant, Late Shri Mohan Lal Yadav, was posted as C.P. Chowkidar at Karvi Head Post Office and died on 05.05.2014. After his death, the applicant’s mother, Smt. Beti Bai, filed O.A. No. 1467/2015 before this Tribunal. The said O.A. was decided by order dated 23.08.2017. The respondents challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 13430/2018, Union of India & Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Others. The High Court granted an interim stay on 30.07.2018 against the order of the Tribunal. The said writ petition is still pending. The applicant had also earlier filed O.A. No. 349/2016 seeking compassionate appointment. The said O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal on 07.03.2018 with a direction to the respondents to consider his case in accordance with law. Thereafter, the applicant and his mother filed Contempt Petition No. 157/2018 before this Tribunal in respect of the aforesaid order. The contempt petition is still pending. Thus, the applicant was already pursuing the same dispute through the earlier O.A., the pending contempt petition MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA and the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. However, the applicant