(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal,Bangalore Bench, Bangaloredated 04.03.2014 in O.A.No.243 of 2013, copy as per Annexure-A, and dismiss O.A.No.243 of 2013.)

1. In this Writ Petition, Union of India (Postal Department), is challenging order dated 04.03.2014 in O.A. No.243/2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ('CAT' for short), whereby the CAT has quashed a letter bearing No.15-9/2005-GDS dated 13.01.2006.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that father of the respondent Basavanthappa was working as a Grameen Dak Sevak' ('GDS' for short) at Aihole Branch. He passed away on 06.10.2003 while in service. His wife submitted a representation on 01.01.2004 requesting the respondent to consider the case of her son (respondent) for appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected by a communication dated 19.10.2005. It transpires that the respondent has submitted subsequent representations with a request to review the earlier decision. With communication ending with a letter dated 14.09.2012, the petitioner finally rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that the respondent's father had suffered an order of punishment and he was undergoing punishment at the time of death and therefore, did not have an unblemished record of service and consequently a dependent of such an employee was not entitled for consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an application before the CAT with a prayer to set aside the communication dated 19.10.2005, the first communication rejecting the request for appointing the respondent on compassionate grounds, communication dated 02.08.2010 and the letter dated 14.09.2012, the last communication by the Postal Department under which the petitioner had finally rejected the request of the respondent.

4. It transpires that after holding a disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner has passed an order dated 29.03.2001 inter alia banning petitioner's father from appearing for the recruitment examination to the post of a 'Postman' for a period of three years with immediate effect therefrom. The said order had attained finality. The respondent pleaded before the Tribunal that the punishment imposed was a minor one and therefore, rejection of his request for appointment on compassionate ground is bad in law.

5. Pleadings reveal that it was contended by the respondent before the Tribunal that his father, working as a 'Grameen Dak Sevak' had died while in service leaving behind four dependants viz., his mother, himself and two sisters; his family was in distress and the petitioner had illegally rejected his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that his father was charge sheeted in November 1999 with following imputations;

i) that he had not maintained post man book for the period 09.11.1998 to 27.11.1998; and

ii) that he had paid Rs.100/- short to three payees of the money orders of Rs.400/- each on 26.11.1998.

and prayed for a direction to the petitioners to provide an appointment.

6. The petitioner contested the application by filing statement of objections. The CAT by the impugned order held that the compassion has to be shown to the family of the deceased employee and not to the deceased government servant. CAT has further held that the punishment imposed on the deceased employee is minor in nature and should not come in the way of the claim of the family members. Accordingly, the CAT quashed the letter dated 13.01.2006. The said letter is a communication by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to the Principal Chief Post Master General of Andhra Pradesh Circle wherein it is stated that the terms and conditions of employment of GDSs are different from that of a regular government servant. It is also stated therein that Extra Departmental Branch Offices are opened in remote and rural areas of the country where there is no supervision on day to day basis on the working of GDS. Therefore, it was imperative that the persons working as GDSs should be of impeccable integrity. The condition of unblemished record of service of a GDS for considering for compassionate appointment would certainly work as a deterrent for a GDS to commit any financial irregularity.

7. CAT framed a hypothetical question as to what should happen if an employee dies during the interregnum of the consideration of a disciplinary matter and answered that unless a man is proved guilty, he should be assumed as innocent. It is further held by the Tribunal that the departmental enquiry proceed on preponderance of probabilities and seems remote and vague. In the opinion of CAT, the punishment imposed on the deceased not to allow him to write departmental examination for three years is minor in nature and ought not have been considered against the life and livelihood of the respondent as the same would tantamount to curtailment of the constitutional process and without adequate reason.

8. We have heard Sri.Mallikarjun S.Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri.Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal gravely erred in quashing the communication of the Ministry dated 13.01.2006, which contained guidelines for the department to evaluate and consider the cases of compassionate appointment. The learned counsel submits that the purpose of such guidelines is to ensure that the GDS desist from indulging in any misconduct in general and financial irregularity in particular. He further submits that these guidelines are uniformly applied throughout the Country and the CAT has overstepped in quashing the communication without there being a specific challenge. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GENERAL MANGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. VS. ANJU JAIN reported in ([2008]0 AIR(SCW) 5833) and submits that unblemished service records is a condition precedent for considering the case for a request for appointment on compassionate grounds. On these among other grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing the writ petition.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order of the CAT submits that the Government being a model employer is required to consider the cases of employees who died in harness sympathetically and at any rate the punishment imposed on his father was not so serious to disentitle the petitioner for consideration of his request on compassionate grounds and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

11. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

12. The law on the point of providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the employees working in Government service is fairly well settled. An appointment on compassionate ground is to alleviate the family from distress due to sudden death of a bread winner. It is no doubt true that the Government is the largest employer and required to be a model employer. That does not ipso-facto mean every request for appointment on compassionate ground is required to be considered without any guidelines. Admittedly, the letter dated 13.01.2006 relied upon by the respondents in disallowing the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is indeed in the form of guidelines, which is applied uniformly throughout the country by the Union of India. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was charge sheeted with the imputations extracted supra and an order of punishment was also passed.

13. It is relevant to note that the charges included non-maintenance of book and short payment to the payees of money orders. Although, we are not examining the merits of the case qua the punishment imposed on the father of the deceased, we note that the charges point towards mis-appropriation, which have resulted in an order of penalty. It was not within the relm of the CAT to examine the legality or otherwise of the letter dated 13.01.2006, which forms the basis for rejection of the applicati

on filed by the petitioner, as there was no specific challenge to the said letter. Suffice to state that with the postal department having such large number of employees the guidelines ought not to have been quashed without a proper challenge and opportunity to the petitioners to defend the same. 14. Further, it is noteworthy that the father of the respondent has passed away on 06.10.2014. The respondent is aged about 29 years now. The purport and intent of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Benovelant philosophy of State is to extend a helping hand to the family in distress. As on date, much water has flown under the bridge with a lapse of more than one decade. In the circumstances, in our considered opinion the order passed by the CAT is not sustainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the order passed by the CAT dated 04.03.2014 is quashed. Ordered accordingly. No costs.