Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period and after the crisis is over.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. The petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus seeking directions to the respondents to offer an appointment to the petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground.

3. Having heard both the sides and having gone through the record, it appears that petitioner No.1 is 44 years old. His mother Laxmibai expired on 15- 12-2002, while she was in service. Petitioner No.1 was then 27 years old. He claims to have no knowledge of the policy of the government in respect of appointment on compassionate ground. When the petitioner No.1 came to know about such policy, he submitted his first application on 21/3/2006 with the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate ground. He was 31 years old at that time. He made repeated request for his appointment, but respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not take cognizance of his request.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 2002 when mother of petitioner No.1 expired, the then existing policy permitted the persons like petitioners to make an application for appointment on compassionate ground within the period of five years of the death of the employees. However, said policy came to be modified on 22/8/2005, thereby reducing the period to one year.

5. Respondent No.3 on 21/2/2008, rejected the application of petitioner No.1 on the ground that the appointment was sought after the period of limitation.

6. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 went on to make correspondences with the respondents, particularly respondent No.3 to pursue his claim on the ground that limitation for filing the application was 5 years at the relevant time and not one year.

7. It appears that in the year 2016, respondent No.3 sought guidance from the State Government. In response, the State Government appears to have informed respondent No.3 that the petitioners claim would be governed by the government resolution dtd. 26/10/1994 and not by the government resolution dtd. 22/8/2005. In June, 2017, the name of the petitioner No.1 was included in the wait-list. However, the appointment was not given. The petitioner No.1 made further representations. He has now come up with a plea that on 16/11/2021 he would attain the age of 45 years and therefore, his name is likely to be deleted from the wait-list. Accordingly, an alternative prayer is made seeking direction to the respondents to appoint petitioner No.2 in place of the petitioner No.1. In the process the petitioners have lost almost 20 years.

8. The question before the court is whether, in such circumstances, the claim of the petitioners is maintainable. The answer would be in the negative for the reasons to follow.

9. It is well settled by now that the compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. Thus, the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.

10. Thus, if the appointment is not made within a reasonable time, persons like the petitioners ought to approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. Having not done so for 20 years, the petitioners would not be entitled for appointment by resting their case on the alleged errors committed by the respondents or on the basis of representations made by the petitioners. In the case of Surjit Singh Sahni Vs State of UP and Ors. In Special Leave Petition c NO. 3008 if 2022, it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that mere representations would not survive the limitation period.

11. The learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in the case of Leelabai Yashwant Ghodke and another Vs Union of India and others, 2018 (5) Mh.L.J. 458. The widow of the deceased Railway employee was 54 years old and w