Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dipika Diliprao Dalvi (widow) and her son Aditya Diliprao Dalvi, filed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. The husband of petitioner No.1 died on 22.01.2009 while serving as a school teacher. Petitioner No.1 applied for compassionate appointment on 09.11.2009, but no action was taken. After almost 10 years, on 20.12.2018, she sought to substitute her son (petitioner No.2) as the claimant. The son, born on 20.03.2001, attained majority on 20.03.2019 and applied on 22.08.2019 to be included in the list of candidates. The court noted that the family had survived for 14 years without any government assistance, and the widow had not provided details of her income or the marital status of her two daughters. The court held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the breadwinner. A delay of 14 years defeats this purpose, as the family has already managed to survive. The court also observed that substitution of the claimant after such a long delay is not permissible. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the court dismissed the petition, stating that no case for compassionate appointment is made out.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay - The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis. A delay of 14 years defeats this purpose as the family has already survived without such assistance. (Paras 2-4)
B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Substitution of Claimant - Substitution of the widow by the son after 10 years is not permissible as the scheme does not contemplate such substitution after a long delay, especially when the original claimant (widow) did not pursue the claim diligently. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compassionate appointment after a delay of 14 years from the date of death of the government servant, and whether substitution of the widow by the son is permissible.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a vested right
- delay defeats purpose
- substitution of claimant not permissible after long delay
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 14
WRIT PETITION NO.11067 OF 2022
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Sanjay A. Deshmukh
Shri Deshpande Abhishek C. (for petitioners), Ms.Rashmi P. Gaur (AGP for respondents 1 to 3), Shri S.B. Pulkundwar (for respondents 4 and 5)
Dipika Diliprao Dalvi and Aditya Diliprao Dalvi
The State of Maharashtra and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the widow and substitution by son.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought compassionate appointment for petitioner No.2 (son) in place of petitioner No.1 (widow).
Filing Reason
The husband of petitioner No.1 died on 22.01.2009; she applied for compassionate appointment on 09.11.2009 but no action was taken; after 10 years she sought substitution of her son.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compassionate appointment after a delay of 14 years from the date of death of the government servant.
Whether substitution of the widow by the son is permissible after such a long delay.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the widow applied in time but the authorities did not process the application, and the son is now eligible.
Respondents argued that the delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment and the family has survived without assistance.
Ratio Decidendi
Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis. A delay of 14 years defeats this purpose as the family has already managed to survive without such assistance. Substitution of the claimant after such a long delay is not permissible.
Judgment Excerpts
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the purpose of granting compassionate appointment, after passage of decades or more, would actually defeat the purpose of granting compassionate appointment.
We find that this petition does not contain pleadings as regards how the petitioners’ family survived for almost 14 years after the death of the bread earner.
Procedural History
The husband of petitioner No.1 died on 22.01.2009. Petitioner No.1 applied for compassionate appointment on 09.11.2009. On 20.12.2018, she sought substitution of petitioner No.2 (son). The son applied on 22.08.2019. The writ petition was filed in 2022. The court heard the matter on 10.11.2022 and passed an interim order calling for details. Finally, on 15.12.2022, the court dismissed the petition.
