The eligibility for compassionate appointment must be determined based on the candidate's age on the date of the employee's death. Additionally, the COVID-19 limitation extension period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) must be excluded when calculating such timelines.

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of present case, from the respondents.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment by determining the age of petitioner on the basis of date of death of his father, in accordance with law.

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, who was working on the post of Peon under Respondent No. 2, died in harness on 11.03.2020. He would further submit that the petitioner, moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 15.03.2021 before respondent No.2, during the COVID-19 outbreak. He would also submit that the age of the petitioner on the date of death of his father was 44.5 years; however, the authorities rejected his application on the ground that, on the date of consideration, his age was more than 45 years, and therefore he was not entitled to compassionate appointment.

3. He would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 In Re : Cognizance for extension of limitation, took suo motu cognizance regarding limitation and held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation prescribed under general or special laws. He would also contend that the authorities failed to consider the said judgment while rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment.

He would argue that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to be appointed on compassionate grounds; thus, he would pray that a direction may be issued to Respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the application for compassionate appointment was duly considered and decided strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy by the respondents and same was rejected as on the date of consideration, the age of the petitioner was more than 45 years; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. He would argue that the maximum permissible age limit is 40 years, subject to relaxation as per policy. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661, wherein it has been held that a claim for compassionate appointment can be considered only if the applicant fulfills the prescribed eligibility requirements and subject to availability of vacancy.

5. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718, wherein it has been held that the Court cannot issue a direction for appointment, but can only direct consideration of the case.

6. I have heard learn