Case Note & Summary
The petitioner's mother, a Junior Clerk at the District Court, died in a road accident on 23-12-2007. The petitioner was 7 years old at that time. After attaining majority on 12-09-2018, he applied for compassionate appointment on 29-09-2021, i.e., after 3 years. The respondent rejected the application citing delay beyond the one-year limitation under Rule 10 of the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007. The court held that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family in crisis. A delay of 13 years from the death and 3 years from attaining majority defeats the purpose. The court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union and State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, which held that prolonged delay renders the claim improper. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Limitation - Object of Compassionate Appointment - The object of granting compassionate employment is to tide over a sudden crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. Applications must be made within the prescribed limitation period, and delay defeats the purpose. (Paras 10-12)
B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Limitation Period - Rule 10 of Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007 - Application for compassionate appointment must be made within one year of death in harness, extendable up to two years by the Chief Justice. For minor children, the time runs from the date of attaining majority. (Paras 8, 11)
C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Laches - Application filed 13 years after death and 3 years after attaining majority is grossly delayed. The sense of urgency is lost, and such belated claims cannot be entertained. (Paras 10, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment despite filing the application beyond the prescribed limitation period under the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007?
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned communication dated 15-05-2024 rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is upheld.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Limitation period
- Delay and laches
- Object of compassionate appointment
- Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground
- 2007
- Rule 10
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 181
Writ Petition No. 6891 of 2024
Mr. U. L. Telgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. A. B. Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Anand s/o Balasaheb Deshmukhh
The State of Maharashtra Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for compassionate appointment.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to provide employment on compassionate ground.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's mother died in a road accident on 23-12-2007. The petitioner was a minor at that time. After attaining majority, he applied for compassionate appointment on 29-09-2021, which was rejected by the respondent on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed limitation period of one year.
Previous Decisions
The respondent No. 4 issued a communication dated 15-05-2024 rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground that it was not filed within one year from the date of death of the employee.
Issues
Whether the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007?
Whether the delay of 13 years from the date of death and 3 years from attaining majority disentitles the petitioner to compassionate appointment?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was a minor at the time of his mother's death and could not apply immediately. After attaining majority, he acquired necessary qualifications and applied, but the respondent rejected the application solely on the ground of delay, which is illegal and contrary to the scheme.
Respondents argued that the application was filed after 13 years from the death and 3 years from attaining majority, beyond the limitation period of one year (extendable up to two years) under Rule 10 of the 2007 Guidelines, and therefore the rejection was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee to tide over a sudden crisis. Applications must be made within the prescribed limitation period. A delay of 13 years from the date of death and 3 years from attaining majority defeats the purpose, and such belated claims cannot be entertained. The Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007, Rule 10, requires application within one year of death, extendable up to two years. For minor children, the time runs from the date of attaining majority. The petitioner's application was grossly delayed.
Judgment Excerpts
Application for appointment on compassionate ground shall be made within one year of death in harness, however, in a suitable case the Honourable the Chief Justice may consider request for Compassionate appointment made after 1 year up to 2 years after the death of a Judicial Employee.
The object of granting compassionate employment is to tide over a sudden crisis and application for grant of appointment on compassionate basis should not be considered after a prolonged delay. The sense of urgency should not be lost and entertaining a claim after 17 years would be of no avail.
Procedural History
The petitioner's mother died on 23-12-2007. The petitioner attained majority on 12-09-2018. He applied for compassionate appointment on 29-09-2021. The respondent rejected the application by communication dated 15-05-2024. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007: Rule 10
- Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2019: Rule 10
