Compassionate appointment applications cannot be rejected solely on the basis of age limits; authorities must adopt a humane approach, evaluating the indigent circumstances of the deceased's family and the policy's objective of providing immediate financial succour, rather than mechanical application of age-bar criteria.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER / ENDORSEMENT PRODUCED AT ANNX-G DATED 02.02.2026 PASSED BY THE R2 BEARING NO. EXCISE 15029/19/2025., AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition petitioners seeks the following reliefs.

"a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order quashing the order/endorsement produced at Annexure G dated 02/02/2026 passed by the respondent No.2 bearing No Excise 15029/19/2025.

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other order directing the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner and appoint her on compassionate ground.

c. Grant such any other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, thus allow thus writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under identical circumstances in relation to the prescribed age limit for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Saroja Vs. Managing Director¹In WP.No.106296/2025 dated 14.10.2025 allowed the said petition and quashing the endorsement issued therein and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

It is therefore submitted that the present petition also deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned endorsement and remitting the matter back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the judgment of this court in Saroj's case supra.

Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

In Saroj's case supra, this Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under.

"ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question, an order / endorsement dated 17.01.2025 declining to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the score that the petitioner has become a widow after the cut off age in terms of the scheme for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Girish V.Bhat appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri Prashant Hosamani appearing for the respondents.

3. The facts in brief germane are as follows.

The husband of the petitioner, who was working as a Driver cum Conductor in the respondent – Corporation, from 04.04.2006 dies in harness on 27.09.2023. Immediately after the death of the sole breadwinner of the family, the petitioner - widow of the deceased, files an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said claim comes to be rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 17.01.2025, on the ground that the age of the petitioner is beyond 43 years, as she was 47 years at the time when she becomes a widow. After the said rejection, the petitioner submits a representation explaining the financial condition of the family. It is this endorsement that is called in question in the case at hand.

4. Learned counsel Shri Girish V.Bhat appearing for the petitioner would submit that the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, though restricts the age at 43, the object of compassionate appointment is given a go-bye, as one has to become a widow before 43 years, if the scheme is to be taken stricto sensu. Learned counsel would submit that in identical circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered this very scheme and held that merely because the applicant has crossed the age of 43 years, the appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be turned down and has directed the Corporation to frame a policy, humane in nature.

5. Learned counsel Shri Prashanth Hosamani