ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 08.04.2020, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of application having been moved at a belated stage.

3. The facts in the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner was working under the respondents as a Lineman who died in harness way-back on 28.02.2004. At the time of death of the deceased, the petitioner was a minor aged around Six years. He attained the age of majority in the year 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved an application for compassionate appointment which now vide the impugned order has been rejected.

4. Perusal of the proceedings would clearly reveal that under the policy of compassionate appointment governing the field, it has been specifically prescribed that the period for applying for compassionate appointment is one year. In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly moved an application much beyond a period of one year.

5. From the aforegiven factual matrix itself and what is evidently cleared is that from the time of the death of the deceased employee i.e. in the year 2004, now the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment, they could sustain themselves which by itself shows that the petitioner had sufficient source of income. Moreover, no specific reason has been assigned as to why either the widow of the deceased or any other legal heirs of the deceased had not sought for compassionate appointment at that point of time.

6. It is settled position of law that mode of recruitment by way of compassionate appointment is not to be treated as another source of appointment/recruitment. The policy for compassionate appointment is part of a welfare policy granting social protection to the employees and their family members. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate immediate hardship and distress a family faces on the death of the bread earner. The same has been framed as a welfare scheme on behalf of the welfare State to ensure that family members of the deceased employee may avail the said facility by seeking employment in the event they face any financial crises in accordance with the policy governing the field. In the instant case there is also a policy for compassionate appointment governing the field. The policy for compassionate appointment prescribes a period of limitation within which an application has to be made. The policy does not provide for a clause whereby in the event one of the legal heirs being minor, his/her claim can be kept live till he/she attains the age of majority.

7. Another fact which needs appreciation at this point of time is that the policy for compassionate appointment applicable in the respondent-establishment is not under challenge. Merely because a death of an employee has occurred by itself would not again give rise to a right for appointment but would only have a right for being considered for employment, subject to the claimants fulfilling other requisite eligibility criteria under the policy for Compassionate Appointment. In case if the other family members are having strong financial background, the claim for compassionate appointment can be considered in favour of somebody more needy.

8. It is settled position of law that a claim for compassionate appointment has to be strictly in accordance with the policy for compassionate appointment applicable in the establishment and the respondents-establishment is always expected to strictly adhere to the conditions stipulated therein.

9. In the instant case firstly the application for compassionate appointment being moved after about more than a decade and half and secondly there being no challenge to the policy for compassionate appointment. This Court finds it difficult to entertain the writ petition in the given factual backdrop, particularly when the findings given by the respondents in the course of rejecting