Case Note & Summary
The petitioner No. 1, Rajendra Dattatraya Sawarkar, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. His father, petitioner No. 2 (since deleted), was a Class III employee of the Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board who was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 1 October 1987. On 26 February 1991, petitioner No. 2 submitted an application for compassionate appointment for his son, but no action was taken. Petitioner No. 1 then submitted another application on 15 April 1994. The respondents did not respond, leading to the filing of the writ petition in 1998. The court noted that the father's retirement occurred in 1987, and the first application was made in 1991, nearly four years later. The petition itself was filed in 1998, more than 11 years after the retirement. The court held that the claim for compassionate appointment must be made promptly, and the inordinate delay of 7 years from the date of retirement and 4 years from the last application disentitled the petitioner to any relief. The petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Laches - Petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground based on father's premature retirement in 1987 - Application made in 1991 and 1994, but writ petition filed in 1998 - Court held that inordinate delay of 7 years from retirement and 4 years from last application disentitled petitioner to relief - Petition dismissed on ground of laches (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment on the basis of his father's premature retirement, and whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Delay and laches
- Limitation for writ petition
- Government circulars for compassionate appointment
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 115
Writ Petition No. 376 of 1998
M.W. Harsulkar for petitioners, D.M. Kakani for respondents 2 & 3
Rajendra Dattatraya Sawarkar
State of Maharashtra, Member Secretary Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Superintending Engineer Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Dinesh Prabhakar Mudliar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction for compassionate appointment
Remedy Sought
Petitioner No. 1 sought direction to respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground
Filing Reason
Father of petitioner No. 1 was prematurely retired from service in 1987; applications for compassionate appointment in 1991 and 1994 were not acted upon
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment on the basis of his father's premature retirement
Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that father was prematurely retired in 1987 and applications for compassionate appointment were made in 1991 and 1994 but not considered
Respondents argued that the petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches
Ratio Decidendi
A claim for compassionate appointment must be made promptly; inordinate delay of 7 years from the date of retirement and 4 years from the last application disentitles the petitioner to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
In the present writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 is seeking direction to respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of appointment on the compassionate ground in view of the Government Circular dated 22nd October, 1990 as well as Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1994, on the ground that the petitioner No. 2, who is the father of petitioner No. 1, was prematurely retired from service.
It is submitted that petitioner No. 2 was serving in Class III category with Respondent NO. 3 and in the year 1987 he was compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 1.10.1987.
However, the respondents did not take any steps pursuant to the said application and therefore, petitioner no. 1 on 15.4.1994 submitted another application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to the concerned respondents.
Procedural History
Petitioner No. 2 (father) was compulsorily retired on 1.10.1987. On 26.2.1991, petitioner No. 2 applied for compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 1. On 15.4.1994, petitioner No. 1 submitted another application. No response from respondents. Writ Petition No. 376 of 1998 filed in 1998. Heard on 6.6.2006 and dismissed.
