WP(C) 4980/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order da ted 04.03.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in original applica tion (OA) No. 64/2003 which was filed by the respondent herein as the applicant . The respondent as the applicant had approached the Tribunal by filing the afor esaid O.A. making a grievance against the communication dated 20.02.2003 (Annex ure-E) made by the Assistant Director (Staff), Dibrugarh Region, Dibrugarh to th e Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Cachar Division, Silchar conveying the decision of the Chief Post Master General to the effect that the earlier decision for compa ssionate appointment of the respondent stood cancelled. Prior to the said letter dated 20.02.2003, the case of the respondent/applicant for appointment on comp assionate ground was approved and the same was communicated to the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Cachar Division, Silchar by the Assistant Director (Staff), Assa m Region, Guwahati by his letter dated 19.04.2000. 2. The father of the petitioner while was serving as the Extra-departmental Post Master in the particular branch Post Office, died on 13.05.1999. The appl icant/ respondent being eligible for consideration of his case for appointment o n compassionate ground made a prayer to the authority for his such appointment. By Annexure- B communication dated 19.04.2000, the approval to the case of the r espondent/applicant for appointment on compassionate ground was conveyed subjec t to payment of the particular amount allegedly defrauded by his father while in service. It will be pertinent to mention here that no departmental proceeding w as initiated against the father of the petitioner. However, the alleged loss sus tained by the department was recovered from the terminal benefits. It appears th at a total amount of Rs. 30,591.75 was recovered/adjusted from the terminal bene fits of the petitioner’s deceased father and as per Annexure -A document prepar ed by the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Cachar Division, Silchar there is still un adjusted amount of Rs. 1555.75. In the said document, it has been clearly stated that no disciplinary proceeding could be taken against the petitioner’s decease d father, as the alleged fraud had been detected after his death. 3. As noted above, the compassionate appointment of the petitioner was prov isionally approved subject to payment of alleged defrauded amount which after ad justment from terminal benefits stood at Rs. 1555.75. After the aforesaid appro val was conveyed, the respondent/applicant kept on approaching the authorities for his appointment on compassionate ground, but to no effect. The respondent/ap plicant has placed reliance on the Annexure-C scheme for compassionate appointme nt, 1998 issued by the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Personnel & Public Grie vances laying down the guidelines for consideration of such cases. Subsequently, by a circular letter dated 15.02.2001 issued by the Govt. of India in the Minis try of Communications, Department of Posts, it was conveyed that the compassiona te appointment to the dependent of Extra-Departmental Agents (EDA) involved in t he cases relating to serious financial irregularities on which disciplinary proc eedings would have led to their removal/dismissal from services, would not be ju stified. Based on this Circular letter, Annexure-E communication dated 20.02.200 3 impugned in the original application filed before the Tribunal was issued conv eying the decision of the authority in terms of the said Circular dated 15.02.20 01 that the case of the applicant/ respondent stood cancelled. It was also conve yed that his case had not been approved by the Chief Post Master General. 4. We have heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned Central Govt. Standing counsel repr esenting the respondents/petitioners as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counse l appearing for the applicant. While Mr. Choudhury submitted that the circular l etter dated 15.02.2001 cannot take away the right of the applicant for considera tion of his case for appointment on compassionate ground, more particularly when his case was already approved with the aforesaid recovery from the terminal ben efits, Mr. Pathak, learned C.G.S.C. submitted that the applicant cannot claim fo r compassionate appointment as a matter of right. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the l earned counsel for the parties and the materials on record. 6. The Tribunal has taken the view that since the case of the applicant/ re spondent was approved for compassionate ground, same could not have been turned down on the basis of the aforesaid circular letter dated 15.02.2001 with retrosp ective application. As noted above, the father of the applicant died in harness on 13.05.1999. Thereafter the case of the applicant for compassionate appointme nt was processed and duly approved by the competent authority vide Annexure-B le tter dated 19.04.2000. As per the own wisdom of the petitioners, to facilitate t he appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground recovery to the tune of Rs. 30,591.75 was also made from the terminal benefits pertaining to his father . In the communication dated 19.04.2000 conveying the approval of the authority for appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground, it was stipulated that such approval was subject to the payment of the aforesaid amount to be recovere d from the terminal benefits. This particular promise having been made to the re spondent/applicant, we are of the considered opinion that the same very authorit y could not have deviated from the said stand by issuing the impugned letter d ated 20.02.2003 on the basis of the subsequent circular letter dated 15.02.2001. 7. The case of the applicant/ respondent was approved much before the circu lar letter dated 15.02.2001 was issued. The scheme for compassionate appointment , 1998 has been issued by the Govt. of India in the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and Pensions. On perusal o f the entire scheme, it appears that there is no such provision as envisaged in the circular dated 15.02.2001 in terms of which the dependents of deceased EDAs who were involved in cases relating to serious financial irregularities and for whom disciplinary proceeding, if had been initiated would have led to their remo val/dismissal from service, would not be entitled to the benefit of compassionat e appointment. Apart from the fact that the said circular letter can not have an y retrospective application, same has also not been issued by the aforesaid Mini stry which formulated the scheme for compassionate appointment. The circular le tter has been issued by the Govt. of Indian in the Ministry of Communications, D epartment of Posts and not in reference to the aforesaid scheme of 1998. 8. Even if the said circular letter is applied to the case of the applicant , same will not justify rejection of his case as has been done by the impugned A nnexure-E letter dated 20.02.2003. It is not a case of detection of commission o f fraud done by the deceased father of the applicant during his life time. There is also no finding of any involvement and/or commission of any serious financia l irregularities by the deceased father of the applicant/ respondent. No finding has also been recorded that the disciplinary proceeding on such financial irreg ularities would have led to his removal/ dismissal from service. 9. In the instant case the decision to recover from the terminal benefits of the deceased father of the applicant has been taken unilaterally. As per the own admission of the respondents/petitioners, the detection of the alleged fina ncial irregularities committed by the father of the applicant was detected after his death. As to what would have been the defence of the applicant’s father is not known. Merely because the departmental authority felt that because of the f ault on the part of the applicant’s father it has suffered financial loss, that by itself will not justify denial of consideration of the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. 10. During the course of hearing a submission was made by the learned C.G.S .C. that after delay about 10 years from the death of the father of the applican t, the ground reality in making appointment on compassionate ground does not sur vive and accordingly, on that score alone the case of the applicant is liable to be rejected. We are not impressed by this submission. It is not a case of any d elay on the part of the applicant. He made appropriate application immediately a fter the death of his father and his case was also approved by the aforesaid Ann exure-B letter dated 19.04.2000. The recovery was also made from the terminal be nefits pertaining to the deceased father of the applicant to facilitate the appo intment. Thereafter the petitioners delayed the matter and it was only after issuance of the aforesaid circular letter dated 15.02.2001, the impugned letter dated 20.02.2003 (Annexure-E) was issued. Immediately thereafter the respondent/ applicant approached the Tribunal by filing the aforesaid OA No. 64/2003 which w as decided on 04.03.2004. Instead of complying with the order of the Tribunal, t he respondents/petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant writ pet ition in 2004. the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal having been staye d by this Court, the respondent/ applicant could not get his appointment. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the applicant for the delay which has occurred in the entire process relating to his compassionate appointment. The postal depart ment instead of acting and behaving as a model employer, tried to deprive the ap plicant from his legitimate claim of compassionate appointment on untenable grou nd and in the process, they, apart from causing delay, also put the applicant in hardship and forced him to face litigation. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly it is dismissed with the direction to implement the order of the Tribunal dated 04.03.2004 passed in OA No. 64/2003 forthwith. There shall b e no order as to costs.