Employer's failure to fulfill its duty to inform and assist bereaved families in submitting applications within limitation cannot be held against the applicants. Procedural delays caused by the department should not prejudice the rights of employees who have been in service for several years. A pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic one must be adopted when dealing with compassionate appointments. (Paras – 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13)

The employer failed in its duty to inform and assist bereaved families as per Government Resolutions of 1996 and 2010. Delay in processing applications (8 to 15 years) was entirely on the part of the department, and petitioners should not suffer due to this lapse. Reliance placed on Roshan Vitthal Kale (Supra) and Malaya Nanda Sethy (Supra) – Employer’s failure to inform and assist justifies setting aside rejection orders.

Held – Orders dated 16th January 2025 quashed; Petitioners’ appointments directed to be regularized with all benefits.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226
• Maharashtra Civil Services Rules – Government Resolution dated 23rd August 1996, Government Circular dated 5th February 2010, Government Resolution dated 21st September 2017
• Case Law Relied Upon – Roshan Vitthal Kale & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2020 (3) Mh.L.J. 470; Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684

Subjects:

Compassionate Appointment – Delay – Limitation – Regularization – Employer's Duty – Government Resolution – Pending Application – Rejection of Appointment

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – Petitioners challenged the orders dated 16th January 2025, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Palghar, rejecting their compassionate appointment regularization due to delay in application submission.
2. Who Approached the Court & Remedy Sought – The petitioners, all appointed on a compassionate basis, sought quashing of the rejection orders and regularization of their appointments.
3. Reason for Filing the Case – The appointments were refused regularization based on delay in application, despite employer’s failure to inform and assist petitioners in the process.
4. Prior Decisions – The Zilla Parishad rejected applications citing delays, ranging from one day to one year and three months, despite petitioners being in service since 2017.

Issues:

1. Whether rejection of regularization on grounds of delay was valid when the employer failed to inform and assist the bereaved families as per Government Resolutions?
2. Whether the delay by the department in processing applications (ranging from 8 to 15 years) prejudiced petitioners’ rights?
3. Whether petitioners, having worked for over 8 years, could be removed based on procedural delay in application submission?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Petitioners – Employer failed to comply with mandatory duty of informing and assisting bereaved families in applying within the limitation period, per Roshan Vitthal Kale (Supra). Delay was due to employer’s inaction, not petitioners’ fault.
• Respondents (Zilla Parishad) – Delay admitted but argued that rejection was per rules, as appointments were made beyond the prescribed limitation period.