The policy prevailing at the time of the employee's demise should govern the case of compassionate appointment.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;

"(A) declaring the decision of the respondent authorities to reject the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment as absolutely unconstitutional, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the rules of compassionate appointment of 2000, illegal, null and void and quashing the same;

(B) directing the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner with all the benefits attached to the post with effect from the date on which decision was taken to offer appointment with all incidental benefits and

(C ) passing any other appropriate order.

23. The petitioner, therefore, prays that during the pendency and till the final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant interim relief:-

(i) directing the respondents to give ad hoc appointment to the petitioner with all the benefits and

(ii) passing any other appropriate order."

2. It appears from the materials on record that the father of the writ applicant was serving as a Packer cum Coolie in the office of the respondent No.2. The father passed away on 1st December, 2000 while in service. On the demise of the father, the writ applicant, being the son, preferred an application dated 16th February, 2001, seeking the compassionate appointment. At the relevant point of time, the policy of the State Government dated 10th March, 2000 as regards the compassionate appointment was in force. According to the said policy, the application should have been filed within three months from the date of the demise of the employee. In the case in hand, indisputably, the application was not filed within three months. It appears that there was a delay of about five months in preferring the application. In such circumstances, the application was rejected. It also appears that vide communication dated 30th June, 2005 of the State Government addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Sub-ordinate Services, the delay in filing such application was condoned. By the time such decision was taken, a new policy came into force in the year 2004. The new policy laid down the minimum qualification of 10th standard pass. The writ applicant had studied only upto the 9th standard. In such circumstances, it was decided that no appointment could be given as the writ applicant was not fulfilling the educational qualification.

3. The principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant is that the new policy of the year 2004 could not have been taken into consideration because the father passed way in the year 2000, and the policy prevailing at the relevant point of time would govern the case of the writ applicant. This submission of the learned counsel, in my view, is fortified by a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar, 2015 (7) SCC 412. The observations made in paragraphs- 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 are relevant. Those are elicited as under;

"17. Applying these principles to the case in hand, as discussed earlier, respondent's father died on 10.10.1998 while he was serving as a clerk in the appellant-bank and the respondent applied timely for compassionate appointment as per the scheme 'Dying in Harness Scheme' dated 8.05.1993 which was in force at that time. The appellant-bank rejected the respondent's claim on 30.06.1999 recording that there are no indigent circumstances for providing employment to the respondent. Again on 7.11.2001, the appellant-bank sought for particulars in connection with the issue of respondent's employment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the cause of action to be considered for compassionate appointment arose when the Circular No.154/1993 dated 8.05.1993 was in force. Thus, as per the judgment referred in Jaspal Kaur's case, the claim cannot be decided as per 2005 Sche