IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment eligibility is determined by the age at retirement, not the application date, and courts will not interfere with clear policy terms unless they are unreasonable or arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Appeal is directed against the order dated June 26, 2023 passed in WPA 11858 of 2023 by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to consider the application for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with law.

2. Appellants are aggrieved by such order on the ground that, the Writ Court did not possess requisite jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition since, the deceased employee was an employee of Gun & Shell Factory which is a department under the Union of India. Consequently, in view of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the writ petition was not maintainable. The other grounds is that, in view of the scheme obtaining for grant of compassionate appointment, since the employee was retired on medical grounds after crossing age of 55 years the writ petitioner was not entitled any compassionate appointment.

3. Referring to the events occurring prior to the filing of the writ petition, learned advocate appearing for the appellants draws attention of the Court to the fact that, the application for compassionate appointment, assuming that, the letter dated March 4, 2022, could be considered as such an application, the same did not give rise to a claim for compassionate appointment as the employee retired on September 23, 2022 after attaining the age of 55 years on July 21, 2022.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants relies upon (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 730 (V. Sivamurthy versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Others) and in particular to paragraphs 33, 34, 35 thereof and contends that, since the employee was retired subsequent to attaining age of 55 years, the writ petitioner is not entitled compassionate appointment.

5. Relying upon a decision of Bombay High Court reported at 2023 BHC-NAG (Shri Nitin versus Union of India) learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, similar issue was considered in respect of an employee of Gun & Shell Factory and request of compassionate appointment was disallowed.

6. In his usual fairness, learned advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the co-ordinate Bench decision dated March 12, 2024 rendered in MAT 137 of 2023 (Union of India & ors. Vs. Sanjay Kundu) and submits that, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was decided as against the appellants.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the sequence of events would show that, the application for grant of compassionate appointment was made prior to the employee crossing the threshold age of 55 years. Moreover, he submits that, the employee suffered injury on February 3, 2021. Employee was treated at the hospital on February 3, 2021 and was referred to a private hospital on February 4, 2021. The first application for grant of compassionate appointment was made on February 16, 2021 while second application was made on March 4, 2022. Both applications were prior to the employee reaching the age of 55 years.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, request for constitution of Medical Board was made much prior to the crossing of the threshold of 55 years. He refers to the sequence of events and submits that, there was a delay in the constitution of Medical Board and the authorities taking a decision with regard retirement on medical grounds. There was inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in deciding the fate of the employee suffering injury. Injury was suffered in the course of the employment. Therefore, he submits that, the private respondent is entitled to grant of compassionate appointment or at least consideration thereof as directed by the learned Single Judge.

9. Records placed before the Court demonstrates that, the date of birth of the employee who was retired on medical ground is July 22, 1967. Such employee suffered injury on February 3, 2021 during the course of