The applicable scheme for compassionate appointment is that in effect at the time of the employee's death.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief (s) :-

“1. (i) For quashing of the order No. 33/2018 dated 20.04.2018 issued by the District and Sessions Judge (Respondent No. 5). Aurangabad communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 562/2018 dated 20.04.2018 whereby and where- under the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected (Annexure-8).

(ii) For the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, especially respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground, whose father died in harness on 28.11.2015.

(iii) For the issuance of any other writ/order/direction as may be considered fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the father of the petitioner who was posted and working as Clerk in Civil Court at Aurangabad died in harness on 28.11.2025. The petitioner being the eldest son filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground on 18.5.2016 enclosing with his application all the relevant documents. Not having been appointed, the petitioner filed CWJC no.3136 of 2018, which was disposed of by order dated 12.3.2018 (Annexure-6) directing the petitioner to file a representation before the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, which was directed to be disposed of within the time fixed.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the direction of this Court as contained in order dated 12.3.2018, the petitioner filed an application on 26.3.2018 which was rejected by order dated 20.4.2018 passed in Order no.33 of 2018 by the District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ application with the further prayer for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application for his appointment on compassionate ground, as evident from the order impugned, is that a restriction was imposed by the High Court that appointment on compassionate ground shall be considered with the restriction that the total strength of compassionate appointees would not exceed 3% of the sanctioned strength of the cadre in which such appointment is being considered. It is submitted that though the limit was raised to 5%, the respondents erred in applying this said restriction for the reason that the same would not be applicable in case of the petitioner for the reason that the father of the petitioner died on 28.11.2015 and the scheme prevalent on the date of death would applicable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank & Ors. vs. Promila & Anr;

(2020) 2 SCC 729 .

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the writ application and submits that the application of the petitioner was considered by the respondent concerned and taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, a detailed order giving sound reasons has been passed. There is no illegality in the order impugned and as such the writ application be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The relevant facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner who was working as a Clerk in the Civil Court, Aurangabad having died in harness, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground which came to be rejected by the order impugned on 20.4.2018