Compassionate appointment is an exception to recruitment rules, strictly bound by a limitation period for application, ensuring it addresses immediate financial crises.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Memo No.PO(G)/PD/9.3.0/16/1713 dated 11.09.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited, on two grounds.

3. The first ground is that the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was made after 1 1/2 years from the date of death of his father, which is beyond the period which has been prescribed by the respondents in their circulars.

The second ground which has been taken by department is that at the time of making such application, the petitioner has crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years, thus, he is not eligible for getting compassionate appointment.

4. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submits that earlier an application claiming compassionate appointment was filed by the younger brother of the petitioner namely Shankar Das. As Shankar Das had filed the application annexing documents, but there was no consent of this petitioner and his mother and the sign of this petitioner was forged, thus he objected on 03.02.2010. As the said objection was raised within 1 1/2 years from the date of death of his father, the respondents could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that this application was filed beyond 1 1/2 years of death of his father. He further submits that ultimately the dispute between the brothers was resolved and on 10.12.2012, the mother of this petitioner i.e. the wife of the deceased, approved appointment of this petitioner and subsequently on 13.12.2012, the petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment. As per Mr. Sahani, the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner should be reckoned from 03.02.2010 i.e. when the petitioner objected the claim put forth by his brother Shankar Das, which is well within 1 1/2 years from the date of death of his father. It was wrong on part of the respondents to conclude that his application is beyond the period of limitation. So far as the other ground is concerned, he submits that now it has been well settled by the decision of this Court that the age of the claimant as on the date of death of the deceased should be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. As per the admission of the respondents themselves, which is apparent from para-24 of the counter affidavit, the age of this petitioner on the date of death of his father (31.10.2008), would be nearly 30 years, which is less than 35 years. That being the position, on the date of death of father of the petitioner, when the petitioner admittedly has not crossed 35 years of age, rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of overage is also bad.

5. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel representing the respondent-CCL submits that father of the petitioner admittedly died on 31.10.2008. He submits that the petitioner had applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 13.12.2012. The limitation period for applying for compassionate appointment in the respondent Company is 1 1/2 years from the date of death of the deceased but at the relevant time, it was one year. Even if 1 1/2 years is considered to be applicable, then also the petitioner’s application is beyond the said period which is in fact is after four years from the date of death. He submits that this period of limitation prescribed, has already been considered by this Court in several judgments either by the Single Bench or by the Division Bench. As per him, the petitioner has not filed any application claiming compassionate appointment on 03.02.2010 and the petitioner has failed to bring on record any such application. He submits that the respondents are not admitting that the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment on