Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sau. Rajeshri w/o Dnyaneshwar Khope (daughter) and Smt. Venutai wd/o Manik Bhatkulkar (widow), sought a direction to the respondents (State of Maharashtra and Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran officials) to consider the claim of petitioner No.1 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The deceased employee, Manik Sitaram Bhatkulkar, died on 28/07/1998 while serving as a Labour since 31/03/1986. On 09/02/1999, the widow (petitioner No.2) applied for compassionate appointment, but no action was taken. A reminder was sent on 14/09/2004. In December 2019, petitioner No.2 learned that her name was removed from the waiting list due to crossing the age of 45 years. On 16/12/2019, she submitted another application requesting consideration of her daughter (petitioner No.1) for compassionate appointment, followed by a reminder on 22/01/2020. The respondents filed an affidavit-in-reply contending that petitioner No.2 first applied in 2004 and was placed on a waiting list, but due to no vacancy and her crossing age 45, her name was removed. The court held that the claim for compassionate appointment is not governed by the Limitation Act, 1963, and is a continuing right. The delay in approaching the court was explained and did not bar consideration. The court directed the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment within four weeks from the date of the order, as she was a dependent and had applied in 2019. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Limitation - The claim for compassionate appointment is not governed by the Limitation Act, 1963; it is a continuing right that can be considered as long as the claimant is eligible under the relevant rules. The court held that the delay in applying does not extinguish the right, and the authorities must consider the claim on its merits. (Paras 6-8) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Laches - Mere delay in approaching the court does not bar consideration if the claim is otherwise valid and the delay is explained. The court held that the petitioners' explanation for the delay was sufficient and the respondents' inaction did not preclude the claim. (Paras 6-8) C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Consideration of Claim - The court directed the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner No.1 (daughter) for compassionate appointment within four weeks, as she was a dependent of the deceased employee and had applied in 2019. The court held that the earlier rejection of the mother's application due to age did not affect the daughter's right. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claim for compassionate appointment made by the daughter of the deceased employee can be considered despite the delay in applying and the mother's earlier application being rejected due to age limit.
Final Decision
The petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the claim of petitioner No.1 for appointment on compassionate ground within four weeks from the date of the order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Limitation Act not applicable
- Continuing right
- Delay and laches
- Consideration of claim
