Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vivek Prakash Garge, filed a writ petition challenging the communication dated 07.06.2022 issued by the Registrar, District and Sessions Court, Jalgaon, rejecting his application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's father, Prakash Garge, was a permanent Bailiff at Yawal Court and died due to a heart attack on 05.08.2008 while in service. At that time, the petitioner was about 9 years old (born 02.09.1999). The petitioner's mother, who had only studied up to 1st standard, applied for compassionate appointment on 16.08.2008, but her application was rejected on 15.07.2009. The petitioner attained majority on 02.09.2017 and applied for compassionate appointment on 12.10.2017. His application was rejected on 10.05.2019 after 19 months. He filed a review application on 03.01.2020, which was rejected on 31.05.2022 after 17 months. The petitioner challenged the rejection, relying on the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007, particularly Rule 7, which allows consideration of applications from minor children after attaining majority. The court considered the submissions and noted that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial succour to the bereaved family to tide over the sudden crisis. The court observed that the petitioner applied within a month of attaining majority, which was a reasonable time. The court held that the rejection on the ground of delay was not justified and that the application should be considered on merits. The court quashed the impugned communication dated 07.06.2022 and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh, ignoring the delay, and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The court also directed that the petitioner be given a personal hearing before passing the order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Object and Purpose - The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant to tide over the sudden crisis. The scheme is not a mode of recruitment but a beneficial measure to alleviate the hardship caused by the death of the breadwinner. (Paras 4-6) B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay in Application - Liberal Interpretation - Where a minor child applies for compassionate appointment after attaining majority, the application should be considered liberally, and the delay should not be a ground for rejection if the application is made within a reasonable time after attaining majority. The court held that the petitioner's application made within a month of attaining majority was within reasonable time. (Paras 5-7) C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines, 2007 - Rule 7 - Rule 7 of the Guidelines provides for consideration of applications from minor children after attaining majority. The court directed that the application be considered on merits, ignoring the delay, and that the authorities should not reject it on technical grounds. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay was justified, considering that the petitioner applied after attaining majority and the family had been in financial distress since the death of the government servant.
Final Decision
The impugned communication dated 07.06.2022 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh, ignoring the delay, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The petitioner shall be given a personal hearing before passing the order.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Object of compassionate appointment
- Liberal interpretation
- Delay in application
- Attaining majority
- Reasonable time
- Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for appointment on compassionate ground
- 2007
- Rule 7
