The Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, dismissed a writ petition filed by the nephew of a deceased employee, seeking a compassionate appointment. The Petitioner, who was not directly related to the deceased in a manner recognized by the government’s compassionate appointment scheme, was found ineligible under Clause 4(A & AA) of the relevant Government Resolution (GR). The court upheld the rejection of the Petitioner’s nomination, emphasizing that the scheme is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the immediate family of the deceased and not to extend employment opportunities to distant relatives.

1. Leave to Correct Respondent Details:

   • The court allowed leave to correct the description of Respondent Nos. 1, 3, and 4.

2. Background of the Case:

   • The Petitioner, nephew of deceased Vijay Ratan Wagh, sought compassionate appointment after the death of his uncle, who was employed as a Peon with the Command Area Development Authority (CADA).
   • Both sons of the deceased had passed away unmarried, and the widow had recommended the Petitioner for the appointment.

3. Government Resolution (GR) and Clause Interpretation:

   • The Petitioner relied on Clause 4(A & AA) of the GR dated 29.09.2017, which outlines eligible categories for compassionate appointments.
   • The court clarified that Clause-AA must be read in conjunction with Clause-A, which limits eligibility to specific close relatives of the deceased.

4. Court’s Analysis and Findings:

   • The court found that the Petitioner did not fall into any of the categories of eligible relatives as outlined in Clause-A.
   • The court also noted the absence of evidence showing that the Petitioner was dependent on the deceased or was residing with him.

5. Purpose of Compassionate Appointment:

   • The court reiterated that the compassionate appointment scheme is designed to provide immediate financial assistance to the deceased's immediate family, not to distant relatives.

6. Conclusion and Judgment:

   • The court upheld the Assistant Superintending Engineer's decision to reject the Petitioner’s nomination.
   • The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.