Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ritesh Gotmare, was the son of a police constable who died in a road accident along with his wife on 11.02.1996, when the petitioner was four years old. After attaining majority, the petitioner made a representation on 31.12.2011 to the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, seeking compassionate appointment. The Commissioner rejected the application on 13.04.2012, citing a Government Resolution dated 11.09.1996 which required applications to be made within one year of attaining majority. The petitioner challenged this rejection in the Bombay High Court. The court observed that the death was sudden and unexpected, and the Government Resolution was made retrospective from 01.03.1996, which should not be used to deny the claim. Additionally, an earlier application had been filed by the petitioner's grandfather on 15.12.1999, which the department overlooked. The court held that the technical aspect of limitation should not be invoked against the petitioner, and the earlier application demonstrated that the claim was not abandoned. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on its merits within three months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Limitation Period - Government Resolution dated 11.09.1996 - The court considered whether the one-year limitation for applying after attaining majority should be strictly applied when the applicant was a minor at the time of parents' death and an earlier application was made on his behalf. The court held that the technical bar should not be invoked against the petitioner, especially when the death was sudden and the earlier application was made in 1999. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of compassionate appointment application on the ground that it was not made within one year of attaining majority is sustainable when the applicant was a minor at the time of parents' death and an earlier application was made on his behalf.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.04.2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on its merits and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Government Resolution
- retrospective application
- minor applicant
- one-year limitation
- substantial compliance
