Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dnyneshwar Umaji Bele, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. The petitioner's father, Umaji Raghuji Bele, who was an employee of the respondents, died on 13-9-1987. The petitioner attained majority on 20-1-2001 and applied for compassionate appointment on 13-10-2010. The respondents processed the application and even provided intermittent work to the petitioner for ten days each month as per communication dated 20-8-2012. However, by communications dated 29-5-2019 and 11-6-2019, the respondents rejected the application on the ground that the application was made after a long delay of about 23 years from the date of death of the employee. The court considered the issue of whether the rejection on the ground of delay was sustainable. The court noted that the application was made in 2010 and was kept pending by the respondents, who also engaged the petitioner intermittently. The court held that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own delay in processing the application. The court relied on the principle that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a scheme to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee. However, when the application is pending and the employer itself has kept it alive by engaging the applicant, the ground of delay cannot be used to reject the claim. The court quashed the impugned communications and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with the rules and policy in force, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Laches - Pending Application - The rejection of compassionate appointment application on ground of delay is unsustainable when the application was pending consideration and the petitioner was intermittently engaged by the respondents - Held that the respondents cannot take advantage of their own delay in processing the application (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay is sustainable when the application was pending consideration and the petitioner was intermittently engaged by the respondents.
Final Decision
The impugned communications dated 29-5-2019 and 11-6-2019 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with the rules and policy in force, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- delay and laches
- pending application
- interim engagement
- scheme of compassionate appointment
- object of compassionate appointment
