1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for getting compassionate appointment upon death of his father dated 6.12.2003. Despite an application preferred on 15.09.2004, no appointment has been given by the respondent authorities in pursuance of compassionate appointment policy. The benefit of the compassionate appointment policy has been extended to the legal heirs of the similarly situated employee, who has expired during the course of employment and therefore the present petition has been preferred.

2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the father of the present petitioner was working with the respondent authority, who has expired in harness on 6.12.2003. The petitioner is son of the deceased employee of the respondent, whose educational qualification is matric fail. He applied on 15.09.2004 but it appears that in proper format this application was not preferred otherwise claim of compassionate appointment was already filed and lodged before the respondent authority.

3. It also appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner is not given compassionate appointment only on the ground that he has not applied in proper format with the respondent authority and when he applied in proper format it was late by a month.

4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that whole compassionate appointment policy is benevolent to the legal heirs of the deceased employees of the respondent authority. The claim of the legal heirs ought not to have discarded on mere technicalities. Applicant is matric fail candidate. He has already lodged his claim in September, 2004 and father of the petitioner died in December, 2003. All proper format application forms are within the custody of the respondents-company and they are not available in open market and, therefore, it will be too technical, to expect an application only in proper format. Nonetheless, in this situation again the application was preferred in proper format but the applicant was late by one month.

5. Looking to his earlier claim lodge in September, 2004, there is no delay in lodging his further accurate claim in proper format which is alleged by the respondent as late by one month. There is no delay at all on the part of the applicant in lodging his claim for compassionate appointment.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons this petition is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to scrutinize the present petition and if he is not otherwise disqualified the appointment shall be made by the respondents forthwith. ‘No application in a proper format’ and the delay will not be considered as grounds for rejection of the candidature of the present petitioner. This petition is allowed and disposed of.