IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 7 OF APRIL, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 2631 of 2025 AKASH TIWARI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kabeer Paul - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Shrikrishna Sharma - Advocate for respondents.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter "BSNL") was dismissed, being barred by limitation and also on merits. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the father of the petitioner was working in BSNL and died in harness on 02.04.2005. Within a short span, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 16.05.2005. The petitioner received no response from the respondent department for years. He filed a further application dated 17.03.2016 seeking an update. On 09.01.2020, he made a fresh representation before the authorities. Thereafter, the respondents vide communication dated 14.01.2020 informed the petitioner that his case had already been rejected vide letter dated 06.07.2015, on the ground that he had secured only 39 points out of 100 under the Compassionate Appointment Policy of BSNL, whereas the threshold was 55 points. The petitioner challenged the order dated 06.07.2015 as well as the communication dated 14.01.2020 before the Tribunal, contending, inter alia, that the rejection letter dated 06.07.2015 was never served upon him, that his case ought to have been decided under the DOPT Policy dated 09.10.1998 (prevalent at the time of his father's death), and that the assessment under the Policy of 2007 was discriminatory and arbitrary. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and the petitioner is now before this Court.

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made before the Tribunal. It is urged that the rejection order dated 06.07.2015 was never communicated to the petitioner and the respondents have failed to produce any evidence of service of the said communication. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner's Original Application before the Tribunal was within time, reckoned from January 2020 when he first received intimation of the rejection. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, BSNL & Ors. v. Vidya Prasad, (2021) 13 SCC 212, as well as the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496, wherein it was held that the applicable policy for deciding a compassionate appointment claim is the one in force on the date of death of the employee. It is also urged that the weightage point system prescribed in the Policy of 2007 is discriminatory since it awards 15 points to a widow but zero points to a son/daughter, which classification lacks any intelligible differentia. It is additionally contended that the terminal benefits received by the family of the deceased cannot be considered as a ground to deny compassionate appointment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition and submitted that BSNL adopted a uniform Compassionate Appointment Policy based on the DOPT guidelines dated 09.10.1998, operationalized through Policy guidelines dated 27.06.2007. The petitioner's case was duly considered by the High-Powered Committee (HPC) in the year 2008 and was found to fall short of the minimum threshold of 55 points, the petitioner having secured only 39 points. The rejection order dated 06.07.2015 was communicated to the petitioner by post, and it was his responsibility to show non-service thereof. Further, th