G Lakshmi Parvathi vs BSNL

¶1

1

¶2

OA.No.618/2023

¶3

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00618/2023

¶5

ORDER RESERVED ON 20.08.2026 DATE OF ORDER: 11.09.2026

¶6

HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

¶7

G.Lakshmi Parvathi, W/o G.Satyanarayana Aged about 43 years, Gr-C Occ: Unemployed, R/o. H.No.12-27 Jagampet Mandal, Sitanagaram Jaggampeta East Godavari – 533435 Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

…..Applicant

¶9

(By Advocate: Smt.S.Anuradha)

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Union of India, represented by The Chief General Manager Telecom BSNL, AP Telecom Circle, Vijayawada-520004.

¶12

The Assistant General Manager, (R&E) O/o the Chief General Manager Telecom BSNL, AP Telecom Circle, Vijayawada-520004.

¶13

The Sub-Divisional Engineer (HRD) O/o GM, Telecom, Rajahmundry-533150.

¶14

….Respondents

¶15

(By Advocate: Smt. T.Bala Jaya Sree, SC for BSNL)

¶16

¶17

LLI SANDHYAPANDIRLAPA Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

2

OA.No.618/2023

O R D E R

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

¶22

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

¶23

“…to call for the records pertaining to the rejection of the applicants case for compassionate appointment through order lr.No.E1/Misc/CGA/G L Parvathi/2014-24/18, dt.30.09.2023 passed rejecting her request for compassionate appointment though weightage points are above 55 but not recommended as being considered for 3^rd attempt and setaside the same by declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the applicant which is arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived frivolous, malafide and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment and be pleased to pass such other and further order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶24

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:

¶25

i. It is submitted that the husband of the applicant, G.Satyanarayana, having worked as Telecom Mechanic, in the respondent department, for about 17 years, died in harness, on 30.12.2012, leaving behind his wife, i.e., the applicant, and a daughter in indigent circumstances. The applicant applied for compassionate appointment for herself. She does not have her own house or any other properties, movable or immovable and is residing in a rented house. The terminal benefits, received on the death of her husband, were utilized for clearing the debts incurred to meet the medical expenses of her husband.

¶26

ii. Due to financial pressure, she had to raise loans of about Rs.4 to 5 lakh on interest @2% and also avail pension loan of Rs.3.5 lakh for which

¶27

LLI SANDHYAPANDIRLAPA Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

¶28

3

¶29

OA.No.618/2023

¶30

Rs.6500/- approx. is being paid as interest. The applicant is working as a daily wager and gets work only on some days, but is mostly idle for want of work. The applicant is financially very weak and down-trodden without proper education and means of livelihood.

¶31

iii. It is submitted that the department rejected the claim of the applicant, through lr No.E-1/Misc/CGA/G L Parvathi/2014-24/18, dt. 30.09.2023, on the ground that her case stands closed, permanently, having been considered in 3^rd attempts. The applicant had weightage points of 55 and above, but was not considered after being considered for the 3^rd attempt, which is not proper, as it is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

The grounds raised for relief by the applicant include the following:

¶33

i. It is submitted that in spite of the fact that the applicant has no source of income and is paying interest against the pension loan taken for her survival, respondents are not considering the facts and circumstances of her case.

¶34

ii. Though the applicant had weightage points of 55 and above, and was recommended, she was not considered after the 3^rd attempt, which is not proper. As such, the applicant has approached this Tribunal to seek direction to the Respondents to consider her for compassionate appointment

¶35

iii. There is no time limit for reconsideration of the case of the applicant, as per the latest circulars and scheme for compassionate appointment.

¶36

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

¶37

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

¶38

4

¶39

OA.No.618/2023

¶40

On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed a written reply, stating that –

¶41

i. It is contended that this OA is not maintainable in law and on facts. The applicant's husband, late G. Satya Narayana, Ex-Telecom Mechanic, Yeleswaram, expired on 30.12.2012, while in service. He had completed 15 years and 2 months of service, after deducting Dies-Non from his service. His wife, Smt.G.Lakshmi Parvathi, the applicant herein, applied for Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA). As per the Welfare Officer's Report, the deceased official had one daughter, G.Sai Sindhu, who is, at present, aged about 20 years. The family is dependent on the family pension, as stated by the applicant.

¶42

ii. The request of the applicant for CGA was rejected, vide Lr No.TA/COVJ/Estt/0031/CGA/2017-18/11/31, dt.06.03.2020, and the same was intimated to the applicant, vide Lr No. E-1/MISC/CGA/GL Parvathi/201424/18, dt.30.09.2023.

¶43

iii. It is submitted that the application for CGA was received by the Respondents and the same was sent to the Circle Office, BSNL, Hyderabad, with all relevant documents, vide Lr.No. E-1/MISC/CGA/GL Parvathi/2014-15/12, dt.01.12.2014. As per the Welfare Officer's Report, the family of the deceased official does not have any movable and immovable properties and is staying in a rented house. As per Part -A forms, an amount of Rs.4,03,504/- was paid to the family including DCRG of Rs.2,62,024/- along with Leave Salary amounting to Rs.33,378/- and GSLI amount of Rs.1,08,102/-.

¶44

LLI SANDHYAPANDIRLAPA Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

¶45

5

¶46

OA.No.618/2023

¶47

iv. The applicant’s application for Compassionate Appointment was taken up during the Circle High Power Committee Meeting held at O/o CGMT, BSNL, Vijayawada, on 25.09.2019 and 09.12.2019. The subject request could not be considered for want of vacancies and stands closed permanently having been considered on the 3^rd attempt, vide Sl. No.39 of Annexure-C, of Lr No. TA/CO-VJ/Estt /0031/CGA/2017-18/II/31, dt. 06.03.2020. In addition, it is intimated that, as per Lr.No. BSNLCOA/15(27)/1/2022-ESTAB, dt. 07.03.2022, Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA) is kept in abeyance by the Department till further orders.

¶48

v. It is argued that, as per Point No.4 of BSNL CO New Delhi Letter, dt. 01.10.2014, CGA applications shall be considered for 3 consecutive years, based on the vacancy position, under the CGA quota, after which the applicant will be out of the list of candidates to be considered for CGA, in future, even though he/she got more than 55 weightage points.

¶49

vi. It is reiterated that the applicant was paid the relevant family pension vide PPO No. 502012122222899, along with DCRG, GSLI and leave salary benefits, as per the provisions available in the service rules and her request for CGA was duly recommended, but could not be considered for want of vacancies, and was finally closed permanently.

¶50

vii. Respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the

¶51

Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, by order, dt.11.05.2023, whereby Writ-A No:12936/2021 and Writ-A No:2613/2023, filed by the BSNL, were allowed, by observing that the law stands settled that appointment on compassionate ground is not an

¶52

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

¶53

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

¶54

6

¶55

OA.No.618/2023

¶56

alternative mode of direct recruitment but is a speedy remedy to overcome the consequences of untimely death of the breadwinner. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic, but subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters, including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of other members of the family. Therefore, no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶57

viii. It is prayed to dismiss the OA, as it is devoid of any merits.

¶58

Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

¶59

Though the applicant has sought to project it as a case of rejection in the year 2023, her case for compassionate appointment belongs to the year 2014 when the applicant had applied for CGA, on account of the death of her husband on 30.12.2012. At the time of his death, her husband was employed as a Telecom Mechanic. The grievance of the applicant is that, despite having over 55 as weightage point, her name was not recommended for CGA. As directed by this Tribunal, Respondents have filed a short affidavit stating that –

¶60

i. The HPC met on 25.03.2017 and examined 397 CGA cases for the financial year 2015-2016 and recommended 154 cases with weightage points 55 & above and, out of the 154 recommended cases, top 9 applicants with weightage points 77 and above were only offered appointment against the CGA 2015-16 vacancies. Remaining 145 cases were kept pending for want of vacancies including the applicant Smt. G. Lakshmi Parvathi who got 56 weightage points. Based on the HPC minutes, dt.25.03.2017, and CO ND LR, dt.16.05.2017, 134 applicants, who had secured more weightage points than Smt. G. Lakshmi Parvathi, were also not offered compassionate

¶61

LLI SANDHYAPANDIRLAPA Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

¶62

7

¶63

OA.No.618/2023

¶64

appointment due to the limited number of vacancies available. 7 other applicants, who had secured the same weightage of 56 points as Smt. G. Lakshmi Parvathi, were likewise not offered appointment.

¶65

ii. The HPC met again on 04.08.2017, and examined the 304 CGA cases with reference to BSNL Company Lr.No.273-18/2013/CGA/P-IV, dt.01.10.2014, for the financial year 2016-2017 and recommended 246 cases having net weightage points 55 and above for further consideration. Out of the 246 recommended cases, 46 applicants (23 applicants belonging to Telangana Circle & 23 applicants belonging to AP Circle) with weightage points 70 and above were offered appointment and the remaining 200 cases were kept pending for want of vacancies, including that of the applicant, Smt. G. Lakshmi Parvathi, who got 56 weightage points. Based on the HPC minutes, dt.04.08.2017, and CO Hyd LR dt.27.10.2017, (AP &HYD CG appointee List); 172 applicants, who had secured more weightage points than Smt. G. Lakshmi Parvathi, and 14 other applicants, who had secured the same weightage of 56 points as Smt. G. Lakshmi Parvathi, were not offered appointment owing to the limited number of vacancies available.

¶66

iii.The HPC once again met on 25.09.2019 & 09.12.2019, examined the 201 CGA cases with reference to BSNL Company Lr.No.273-18/2013/CGA/PIV, dt.0l.10.2014, for the financial year 2017-2018, and 88 cases with weightage points 55 & above were recommended. Out of the 88 recommended cases, 19 applicants with weightage points 67 and above were offered appointment. 47 applicants, who had secured more weightage points than Smt. G. Lakshmi Parvathi, were also not offered compassionate appointment due to the limited number of vacancies available. The applicant, Smt. G.Lakshmi Parvathi and 13 other applicants, who had secured the same weightage of 56 points, as Smt. G. Lakshmi Parvathi, were not offered appointment.

¶67

iv.Thus, the CGA case of Smt. G. Lakshmi Parvathi was considered for 3 consecutive years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. As per Para 4(4) of the CGA guidelines, dt. 01.10.2014, her case is out of the list of candidates to be considered for CGA, in future, and, hence, closed. Accordingly, the above

¶68

Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

¶69

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

¶70

8

¶71

OA.No.618/2023

¶72

CGA case was closed (after the 3^rd & final attempt} and the same was informed to the concerned SSA head/unit, vide TA/COVJ/Estt./0031/CGA/2017-18/II/31, dt.06.03.2020.

¶73

We have gone through the relevant provisions of the BSNL Corporate Office Circular, dt.01^st Oct., 2014, on the subject ‘Compassionate Ground Appointment – Change of procedure. The relevant portions of the Circular are extracted below –

¶74

“a) Cases with 55 or more NET POINTS shall be prima-facie treated as eligible for consideration by Corporate Office, High Power Committee for Compassionate Ground Appointment and

¶75

b) Cases with NET POINTS below 55 (i.e. 54 or less) shall be treated as non-indigent and rejected.

¶76

The Number of CGA quota vacancies would be calculated every financial year by the Circle and declared every year as on 31^st March (ie financial year end).

¶77

4) The above exercise shall be repeated after the end of every financial year and CGA application (with net score 55 or more) shall be considered for 3 consecutive years based on the vacancy position under CGA quota after which the applicant will be out of the list of candidates to be considered for CGA in future.”

¶78

(emphasis supplied)

¶79

The application of the applicant belongs to the year 2014 and has been duly considered by the HPC, as per the department guidelines for considering the cases for CGA. Respondents have relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High

¶80

Court of Allahabad, Lucknow in Writ-A No.12936/2021 and Writ-A No.2613/2023, supra. In addition, we may recall the Apex Court judgments, wherein, it has been held that appointment under the CGA scheme cannot be

¶81

LLI SANDHYAPANDIRLAPA Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

¶82

9

¶83

OA.No.618/2023

¶84

claimed as a matter of right nor can it be provided outside the existing scheme of the department. Any appointment has to be made within the provisions of the Scheme operated by the concerned department, in this regard. The following judgments are found relevant to the case in hand:

¶85

i. The Supreme Court in its judgement, dt.08.04.1993, in the case of Auditor General of India and others vs. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao [(1994) 1 SCC 192], has held that –

¶86

“Appointment on grounds of descent clearly violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution; but if the appointment is confined to the son or daughter or widow of the Government servant who died in harness and who needs immediate appointment on grounds of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being no other earning member in the family to supplement the loss of income from the bread winner to relieve the economic distress of the members of the family, it is unexceptionable.

¶87

x x x

¶88

(iii) The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.

¶89

x x x

¶90

(vi) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.

¶91

ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment, dt.05.04.2011, in Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2006 in Local Administration Department vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, has observed that –

¶92

"An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind".

¶93

LLI SANDHYAPANDIRLAPA Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

¶94

10

¶95

OA.No.618/2023

¶96

In the light of the above, we find that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of compassionate appointment, as the department has already considered her case under the CGA Scheme thrice and she could not be appointed, in view of the limited number of vacancies meant for CGA. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶97

(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) Administrative Member

¶98

11.09.2026

¶99

/ps/

¶100

LLI SANDHYAPANDIRLAPA Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYADN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=[email protected], postalCode=500004, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f41813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 15:50:00+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0

G Lakshmi Parvathi v. BSNL

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Lakshmi Parvathi v. BSNL

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajakta Prashant Wade vs Central Railway

Dilip Deorao Ukey vs Central Railway

Atul Sirjerao Thakare vs Central Ground Water Board

Prashik Anil Ramteke vs Income Tax Department

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary