IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16157 of 2010 2 27.9.2010 Niraj Kumar, S/o Late Hare Krishna Prasad, resident of Village & P.O.- Raghunathpur, P.S. Turkaulia, District East Champaran ….. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The Union of India thorough the Secretary cum D.G., Department of Posts, New Delhi 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna 3. The Director (Staff ), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Champaran Division, Motihari …… Respondents ------- For the Petitioner : Mr J.K.Karn, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr Md. Nadim Seraj, CGC -------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. It appears that petitioner’s father died in harness while holding the post of Office Superintendent Mails in the Department of Posts in November 1993. Since petitioner’s position in the list of persons found fit for compassionate appointment as Postal Assistant was low and could not come within 5 per cent of posts reserved for compassionate appointment, he was ultimately offered a post other than that of Postal Assistant. Offer for the post of GDS was given in the year 2001 which - 2 - the petitioner appears to have accepted but did not join till the year 2004 and hence, the competent authority vide order dated 8.4.2004 contained in Annexure-4, rejected his case by a speaking order pursuant to direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench through order dated 3.10.2001 passed in OA No.606 of 2001. Petitioner again preferred OA No.668 of 2004 before the learned Tribunal wherein he prayed that he be appointed as Postal Assistant. When the Tribunal could not allow that prayer, in course of arguments it was submitted that if the post of GDS is offered to the petitioner he would accept it. But the Tribunal did not entertain this prayer on the ground that such a prayer was not made in the OA and in fact, the applicant had turned down the offer of GDS already in view of finding in Annexure- 4 that he never joined the offered post of GDS. Instead of challenging the order dated 6.7.2007 passed by learned Tribunal, the petitioner prayed for review of that order before the Tribunal itself. That - 3 - review application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.12.2007 contained in Annexure- 9. The petitioner apparently accepted the order of the Tribunal for long period of time and only in September 2010 he has preferred this writ petition. Petitioner has relied upon orders passed in cases of other claimants for compassionate appointment on the post of GDS. Those orders are either of earlier period or of later period. We find no good reason to interfere in this matter. Each case must be decided on its own merit. We are of the view that a claimant for compassionate appointment must show by his conduct also that he is in distress and needs appointment on account of such distress. The conduct of the petitioner shows otherwise. The writ petition is dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. )