Compassionate appointment applications must be submitted within one year of the employee's death, with strict adherence to guidelines to ensure timely relief for families in financial distress.

JUDGMENT :

(Y.G. Khobragade, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties at the stage of the admission.

2. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has put forth prayer clause ‘B’ as under:

“B. By issuing writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, to direct the respondents to provide employment to the Petitioner on compassionate ground."

3. In nutshell, facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Suman Balasaheb Deshmukh, who is the mother of the Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk at the establishment of Respondent No. 4 on 12-10-1987. She was posted at District Court Ambejogai, District Beed. She was holding post of group “C” cadre. Petitioner’s mother (Smt. Suman Balasaheb Deshmukh) died on 23-12-2007 in a road accident. According to the Petitioner her mother was the only bread earner in his family. He, his father and grandparents were dependent on the income of his mother. His father is a casual labour and above age of 48 years. At the time of death of his mother, he was 7 years old, therefore, being minor, he was not eligible to apply for employment immediately after the death of his mother and he was also taking education by that time. Petitioner obtained degree of B. Sc., Computer Science in 1st Division and simultaneously, he has completed technical courses viz., (i) Course of C-Language (Computer), (ii) M.S.C.I.T., (iii) English Typing 40 W.P.M. and (iv) Marathi Typing 30 W.P.M. Therefore, after attaining the age of majority, on 29.09.2021, he submitted an application with Respondent No. 4 and thereby prayed for grant of appointment on the compassionate ground, however, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned communication dated 15th May, 2024 and rejected the request of the Petitioner on ground the that, the application is not filed within the limitation of one year from the date of death of employee.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner canvassed in vehemence that the Scheme of appointment on compassionate ground has been framed with aim and object to tide over a sudden financial crisis on all of sudden death of employee on 23-12-2007, however, at the time of death of Petitioner’s mother, the Petitioner was 7 years old and after attaining the age of majority on 13th September, 2018, the Petitioner submitted an application on 29.09.2021 (after 3 years). It is further canvassed that, the Petitioner acquired essential educational and technical qualifications required for the post consistent with the requirement of maintenance of efficiency in administration of Respondent No. 4, however, Respondent No. 4 rejected the Petitioner’s application on sole ground that, application is not filed within the limitation of one year from the date of death of the employee. Therefore, impugned order is illegal, bad in law as well as contrary to Scheme providing compassionate appointment, hence, prayed to quash and set aside the same.

5. Per contra learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submit that, the Petitioner’s mother died on 23rd December, 2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application on 29th September, 2021, after lapse of more than 13 years. The Petitioner’s date of birth is 13th September, 2000 and he attained the age of majority on 12th September, 2018 itself, however, the Petitioner has not submitted the application seeking appointment on compassionate basis within the period of 2 years from the date of attaining the age of majority as per Rule 10 of the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines For Appointment On Compassionate Ground, 2007. Therefore, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned communication along with letter dated 10th May, 2024 issued by the Registrar (Personnel), High Court, Bombay and rejected the application of the Petitioner, which is just and proper, hence, prayed for dismissal of the Petition.

6. It is not in dis