Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Anusaya Mangrulkar (petitioner no.1) and Sau. Durga Daygawhane (petitioner no.2), approached the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of petitioner no.2's application for compassionate appointment. The husband of petitioner no.1 retired on medical grounds on 15/03/1993. Petitioner no.1 applied for compassionate appointment but instead was granted a monthly monetary benefit of Rs.2,000 per month under a Government Resolution dated 20/07/1999, which she started receiving from 2009. In 2011, the Compassionate Appointment Scheme was amended to include married daughters within the definition of family. Petitioner no.2, the married daughter, applied for compassionate appointment, but her application was rejected by an order dated 29/07/2016 passed by respondent no.4. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was unreasoned and that the claim was not properly considered. The respondents argued that after a long passage of time, petitioner no.2 was not entitled to relief. The court examined the object of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, which is to provide immediate relief to a financially distressed family due to untimely death or premature retirement of the sole breadwinner. The court noted that the scheme is not a mode of recruitment but a means to tide over the crisis. The court found that the rejection order was unreasoned and did not consider the claim in terms of the scheme. The court also observed that the delay in applying was not a valid ground for rejection, as the amendment in 2011 brought married daughters within the scheme's ambit, and petitioner no.2 applied thereafter. The court set aside the impugned order and directed respondent no.4 to reconsider the application afresh, in accordance with the scheme and the observations made in the judgment, within three months. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Object of Scheme - The object of any Compassionate Appointment Scheme is to provide immediate relief to a financially distressed family whenever untimely death or unexpected premature retirement on medical ground of a sole breadwinner occurs - The scheme is not a mode of recruitment but a means to tide over the crisis - Held that the claim must be considered in light of this object (Para 4). B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay - Delay in applying for compassionate appointment cannot be a ground for rejection if the scheme itself is amended to include new categories like married daughters - The amendment in 2011 brought married daughters within the definition of family, and petitioner no.2 applied thereafter - Held that the rejection on ground of delay was not justified (Paras 5-6). C) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Reasoned Order - The impugned order rejecting the application was unreasoned and did not consider the claim in terms of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme - Held that the order is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration (Paras 3, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of petitioner no.2's application for compassionate appointment was proper and whether the claim should be considered afresh in light of the object of the scheme.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 29/07/2016 is set aside. Respondent no.4 is directed to reconsider the application of petitioner no.2 afresh, in accordance with the Compassionate Appointment Scheme and the observations made in the judgment, within three months from the date of the order. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is not a mode of recruitment but a means to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased or medically retired employee
- Object of compassionate appointment scheme is to tide over the crisis arising due to untimely death or premature retirement
- Delay in applying for compassionate appointment cannot be a ground for rejection if the scheme itself is amended to include new categories
- Rejection order must be reasoned and consider the claim in terms of the scheme
