Point of Law: when the application for compassionate appointment was taken up for consideration by the respondent - Corporation, the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of application would be basis for considering claim for compassionate appointment. Therefore, he has submitted that the day on which his application is considered, lumpsum financial assistance in lieu of compassionate appointment was in vogue, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to at least get such financial assistance in view of the prevailing Scheme at that time.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, petitioners challenge the order dated 27.05.2015, whereby the application made by the heirs of deceased - Indrishkhan Pathan, who died on 08.06.2003 while in service, was rejected on the ground that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made beyond two years as provided under the Scheme, and therefore, they are not entitled for the same. In the alternative the petitioners have prayed for consideration of their case for the purpose of financial assistance as per Government Resolutions dated 05.07.2011 and 13.10.2015.

2. As per the case of petitioner no.1, husband of petitioner no.1, died on 08.06.2003 while in service, as Art-C Mechanic with respondent - Corporation since 14.11.1970. As averred in the petition, the petitioners were never informed by the respondents that they have a right to get compassionate appointment in view of death of the husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2. However, petitioner no.1 made an application on 27.07.2009 informing the respondent - Corporation that petitioners nos.1 and 2 are heirs of deceased and they reserve their right to have the benefits of the Scheme of the respondent - Corporation offering compassionate appointment since petitioner no.2 was minor. It is further mentioned in it that petitioner no.2 is still minor, however, at the bottom of the application dated 27.07.2009, date of birth of petitioner no.2 is mentioned to be 06.11.1987. Thereafter also, petitioners have communicated to the respondent vide communications dated 03.12.2010, 11.03.2011 and 25.08.2014 to consider their case for compassionate appointment under the Scheme. However, vide communication dated 27.05.2015, the application of the petitioners came to be rejected on the ground that it is not moved within the period of limitation as prescribed under the Scheme.

3. Shri Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that though the first application came to be made in the year 2009, respondent - Corporation did not find any time to respond to the application. On one hand, application of the petitioners, may be according to the Scheme, was rejected on the ground of delay. The Scheme does not stipulate any limitation for response of the Department to the dependents of the employee who died in harness, and therefore, he has submitted that even if the Scheme prescribes any period of limitation, it should not have been rejected on the ground that it has been applied beyond the time prescribed. He has further submitted that petitioners understood the age of majority to be 21 years, and therefore, under that belief they had communicated on 27.07.2009 to have the compassionate appointment and to reserve their right to apply as and when petitioner no.2 becomes major. Since the petitioners are illiterate, they could not apply within the time and they were not made aware of such period of limitation prescribed under the Scheme.

3.1 Shri Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners, further submitted that rejection of the application vide communication dated 27.05.2015 refers about only one application made on 25.08.2014. However, drawing attention of the Court to the application dated 25.08.2014, he has submitted that the said communication refers about all the applications made by them since 27.07.2009. He has further submitted that vide Resolution dated 17.05.2014, which is applicable to the respondent - Corporation, the policy for compassionate appointment has come to be replaced providing lumpsum financial assistance in lieu of employment. Drawing attention to the Scheme, which is annexed with the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent, which is at page 83, more particularly at page 86, it is provided that the dependents, of the employee, who have died prior to 05.07.2011 and their cases are pending consideration they are to be dealt with as per the Scheme dated 17.05.2014 offering option to the dependents of lumpsum financial assistance. The sa