Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of employment, intended to provide immediate financial relief to a family in crisis. Belated claims filed after an inordinate passage of time undermine the object of the relief and may be dismissed on grounds of delay, laches, and public policy.

1. By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 25.3.2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 7 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the name of the petitioner for grant of compassionate, in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father, namely, Prafull Nahak who was working on the post of General Mazdoor, Category-I under the respondents died in harness on 8.11.1999 and petitioner moved the application for grant of dependent employment on 23.12.2016 which was rejected by respondent No. 7 vide order dated 25.3.2018 on the ground that application was moved after period of 17 years. He further submits that at the time of death of petitioner’s father, petitioner was aged 5 years 7 months and 3 days and he moved application for grant of dependent employment immediately after attaining majority. He contends that authority concerned has rejected the application moved by petitioner without assigning sufficient reasons. He prays to set aside the order impugned.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that application was moved by petitioner after 17 years. He further submits that at the time of death of petitioner’s father, petitioner had not attained the age of 12 years, therefore his name was not kept in live roster and that was the reason, his application was rejected. He contends that this petition has been filed in the year 2021 whereas petitioner’s father died in year 1999, therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. Petitioner’s father who was working under respondents died in harness on 8.11.1999 and on the date of demise, petitioner was aged 5 years 7 months and 3 days, therefore his name was not kept in live roster and that was the reason, application moved by petitioner was rejected. Be that as it may, application was moved by petitioner for grant of dependent employment after 16 years i.e. on 23.12.2016 and this petition has been filed in year 2021.

6. In the matter of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate¹AIROnLine 2022 SC 471, Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under :

"7.Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent