Compassionate appointment claims strictly governed by time limits in G.Os; no right to relax delay despite family hardship.

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

16.06.2021, whereby petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was rejected on the premise that petitioner being a minor son, ought to have submitted his application within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee.

2. Petitioner’s mother was working as a Headmaster in a Village Panchayat Union Elementary School and died in harness on 14.01.2008. Petitioner was only 12 years old at that time and was under the care of his relatives, inasmuch as he had lost his father even earlier when he was only five years old. Petitioner filed an application on 01.02.2021, which was rejected vide the impugned order on the premise that the application is beyond the period of three years from the date of death of his mother, by placing reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner, having lost both his father and mother at a tender age of 5 and 12 respectively, his case ought to have been considered on compassionate grounds.

4.1 However, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents would submit that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is governed by the relevant G.Os, Rules and Acts prevailing on the the date on which the application is filed. He would then bring to the notice of this Court that the application was made on 01.02.2021 and would thus be governed by G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 23.01.2020.

4.2 He would also submit that the above G.O provides that an application for appointment on compassionate grounds must be submitted within three years from the date of death of the Government servant. Though the case of petitioner is very unfortunate, he would submit that inasmuch as the G.O provides for a three year period within which the application must be submitted and since the application has been submitted much beyond the said period, the impugned order may not warrant interference.

5. This Court finds merit in the above submission of the learned Government Advocate, and thus the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

6. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.