The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2311 of 2025 Union of India, New Delhi and others …. Petitioners Mr. Biswajit Maharana, Senior Panel Counsel -versus- Urmila Mohanty and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Swapna Kumar Ojha, Advocate for opposite parties nos.1 and 2) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 11.07.2025 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India challenging the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.584 of 2023 under Annexure-1 so also the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in R.A. No.16 of 2024 under Annexure-2. From the factual scenario, it appears that the opposite parties nos.1 and 2 were the applicants Page 1 of 8 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal and they filed the application being aggrieved for non- consideration of the case of opposite party no.2 Satyajit Mohanty for awarding compassionate appointment. It appears that the husband of the opposite party no.1, who is also the father of the opposite party no.2, late Goura Charan Mohanty was the Ex- Assistant Post Master (APM), Bhubaneswar GPO and one late Biswajit Mohanty, Ex-Branch Post Master (BPM), who is the brother of opposite party no.2 Satyajit Mohanty and, of course, the son of opposite party no.1, while moving to the service place met with an accident on 28.09.2006 and both of them died on 06.10.2006 and 01.10.2006 respectively. At the time of death of the father of the opposite party no.2, he had six to seven years left to retire and by then he had rendered thirty years of service in the department. The opposite party no.2 applied for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of his father, but his case was rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) on 10.12.2009 on the ground that there is no liability in the family and the condition is not so indigent and thereafter, the case of the opposite party no.2 was considered twice and it was rejected on the ground of want of vacancy. Page 2 of 8 The opposite party no.2 approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1112 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.02.2013 directing the petitioners to consider the case of the opposite party no.2 and in pursuance of such order, the petitioners considered the case of the opposite party no.2 and rejected the prayer vide order dated 14.02.2014 on the ground that the opposite party no.2 is a married person and as per the DOP&T circular dated 30.05.2013, a married son is not considered as dependent and as such he is not eligible for compassionate appointment. However, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 03.03.2021 intimated the opposite party no.2 that he can again apply for compassionate appointment and in response to the such letter, the opposite party no.2 again applied for the same with all relevant documents and since the petitioners did not take any action on such application, the opposite parties nos.1 and 2 approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.164
Decision
of 2023 and the same was disposed of on 10.04.2023 directing the petitioners to take a decision on the application within a reasonable period and since the said order was not carried out, a Contempt Petition was filed by the opposite parties and after receiving Page 3 of 8 the notices in the contempt proceeding, the petitioners communicated the order dated 25.09.2023 to the opposite party no.2 rejecting his prayer without assigning any reason. The opposite parties nos.1 and 2 challenged the said order before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.584 of 2023. After issuance of notice, the petitioners appeared and filed the counter affidavit and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and taking into account the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Another -Vrs.- Steel Authority of India reported in 2000 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 767, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has been pleased to quash the rejection order dated 25.09.2023 and 03.11.2023 and remitted the matter back to the petitioners for reconsideration of the prayer for compassionate appointment of the opposite party no.2 in accordance with rules and to communicate the decision to the opposite parties nos.1 and 2 by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The operative portion of the impugned order is quoted hereinbelow:- “7. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. -vs- Steel Authority of India [2000 SCC (L&S) Page 4 of 8 767] Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while considering the case of appointment on compassionate grounds the retiral benefits received by the family shall not be taken into account. Therefore taking into consideration the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the action of the respondents is rejected the case of applicant No.2 for compassionate appointment on the ground that his mother (widow of the deceased) is getting adequate pension, is illegal and bad in law. 8. In view of the above, the impugned rejection orders dated 25.9.2023 and 3.11.2023 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration of the prayer for compassionate appointment of the applicant No.2 in accordance with rules and observations made above and communicate the decision to the applicants by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt, of the copy of this order. 9. The OA is accordingly disposed of. No Page 5 of 8 order as to costs.” It appears that a Review Petition was filed by the petitioners to review the aforesaid order dated 16.05.2024 passed in O.A. No.584 of 2023, which was also dismissed. The order dated 25.09.2023 indicates that the case of the opposite party no.2 was rejected by the Competent Authority without assigning any reason. However, the order dated 03.11.2023, which is annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal and annexed as Annexure-R/1 indicates that since the Postal Directorate Memorandum No.17- 1/2022-SPG-II dated 23.03.2022, the cases for compassionate appointment are to be considered for three times at most and if on the 3rd consideration, the case is not recommended, then the same is to be rejected, the case of the opposite party no.2 was rejected being considered for a total number of three times by the previous CRCs. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India also placed the order and submits that in view of the Postal Directorate Memorandum, the case of the opposite party no.2 for compassionate appointment could not have been considered and therefore, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Page 6 of 8 should not have set aside the same and passed the impugned order remitting back the matter to the petitioners for reconsideration of the prayer of compassionate appointment. We are not agreed to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The reason is very simple that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has passed a specific order on 10.04.2023 in O.A. No.164 of 2023 to reconsider the case of the opposite party no.2 for compassionate appointment, which was not challenged in any higher Court and therefore, the Authority concerned should have considered his case on merit and it should not have been rejected merely because the Postal Directorate Memorandum dated 23.03.2022 states that after third consideration, if the case is not recommended, then the case ought to be rejected. Such a Postal Memorandum cannot override the effect of the order of the Court. Therefore, we are of the humble view that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal is quite justified in setting aside both the order dated 25.09.2023, which indicates no reason for rejection of the case of the opposite party no.2 so also the order dated 03.11.2023, which has been rejected on irrelevant grounds and therefore, we find no merit to Page 7 of 8 interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) RKM Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-Jul-2025 18:25:40 Page 8 of 8