UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHARMENDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.1.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Tribunal), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No.137 of 2002.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that : Bhaskar Sahu, who was the father of Opposite Party No.1 died on 4.4.1998 while working as Head Postman at Chhatrapur Head Post Office. Opposite Party No.1 applied for compassionate appointment. His name was approved by the Circle Relaxation Committee and allotted to Berhampur Division in Postal Assistant cadre. At that time, there was no vacancy and the authority asked all the approved candidates to express their willingness for consideration for appointment in pursuance of Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi in OM No.42012/4 -2000 -Estt (D), dated 24.11.2000 communicated in DG Posts Letter No.24 -1 -/99 -SPB -I, dated 8.2.2001. Subsequently, the authority found that the chances for absorption in other Ministries are remote since there are also not enough vacancies within the ceiling limit of 5% of vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota and the practice of circulating names of the deserving applicants to other Ministries/Departments has been discontinued. Keeping this in view, it was felt that an opportunity can be given to such wait listed candidates who are waiting for some time to be considered for vacant posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks, if they are willing and eligible for the post. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 who is the applicant in the O.A. has given his willingness. But the authority has given appointment to one Debasis Mohanty on 22.11.2001. Hence, being aggrieved, the Opposite Party No.1 approached the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance and prayed for absorbing him P.A. cadre on compassionate ground in Berhampur Division/Army Postal Service/ or in other Ministry/Department within a stipulated period.

(3.) THE Tribunal, after hearing both the parties allowed the O.A. as per Annexure -A/1 and held that the only limitation put in Annexure -1 was that the actual letter of appointment would be issued as soon as a vacancy would arise. If there was no vacancy, Debasis Mohanty could not have been accommodated therein in 2001 in preference to the petitioner who is a candidate of the approved list of 1998. From the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no doubt that the applicant has received an unfair deal from the respondents because no one from compassionate quota could have ever been appointed in Berhampur in Berhampur Division, in preference to him and there is no doubt that appointing a person out of turn from Bhadrak Division was not only a breach of Departmental rules but also smacks of favouritism.