Bombay High Court: The petitioner whose mother was employed at the District Court, Ambejogai, Beed, (“respondent 4”) as a Junior Clerk, had passed away in a road accident when he was 7-years old, challenged the rejection of his application for a compassionate appointment with the respondent 4. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge and Y.G. Khobragade*, JJ., opined that petitioner’s application was not made in a timely manner to secure the benefit of compassionate appointment, as stipulated under the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2019 (“2019 Guidelines”). The Court further observed that the petitioner and his family had not been suffering financially for 13 years since the death of the deceased until the date of application of the petitioner. The Court observed that the grant of a compassionate appointment to the petitioner would have defeated the very purpose of the benefit.
Background
The mother (“deceased”) of the petitioner had passed away in a road accident on 23-12-2007. At the time of her demise, the petitioner was 7 years old. The petitioner submitted that the deceased was the sole earner for their family and that him, his father, and grandparents were dependent on her income. The petitioner submitted his educational qualifications, stating that he had completed technical and computer courses, and prayed for an appointment on compassionate grounds to respondent 4. Respondent 4 rejected the petitioner’s request on the ground that his application was not made within the stipulated limitation period after the death of the deceased. The petitioner challenged the rejection by respondent 4 of his application for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Court noted that the petitioner was seeking compassionate appointment after 13 years and 9 months since the death of the deceased. According to his birth records, the petitioner attained the age of majority in 2018.
The Court further noted that respondent 4 did not have independent rules on providing compassionate appointment, therefore, the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007 (“2007 Guidelines”) must govern the petitioner’s prayer considering the time of death of the deceased. The Court upon perusing the provisions of the 2007 Guidelines, found that they stipulated for a compassionate appointment application to be made within a year since the death of an employee.
The Court referred to Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Kamgar Union, (2022) 10 SCC 172, and State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, wherein the Supreme Court held that the object of compassionate employment is to tide over a sudden crisis, and the application for grant of appointment on compassionate basis should not be considered after a prolonged delay; the sense of urgency should not be lost.
The instant Court further noted that it had revised the 2007 Guidelines to the 2019 Guidelines, which provided that an application for compassionate appointment is expected to be made within one year post attaining the age of majority. However, the Court observed that the instant petitioner had made the application 3 years after turning 18 years old.
The Court referred to Malaya Nanda Shetty v. State of Orissa1, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the purpose of compassionate appointment was to immediately render financial assistance to the family of the untimely deceased employee, who otherwise may be placed in a position of financial hardship.
Further, the Court referred to SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271, wherein the Supreme Court had held that when the family of a deceased employee is in penury and without any source of livelihood, then in such cases compassionate appointment can be considered to provide immediate aid to the deceased employee’s family.
Furthermore, the Court referred to State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, wherein it was observed that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, the dependants of the deceased government employee must fulfil the terms of the compassionate appointment policy of the employers.
Lastly, the Court also referred to Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd v. Anusree K.B., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331, wherein the Supreme Court held that the daughter of the deceased employee shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate grounds, after 24 years since the death of the deceased employee, as the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate grounds is provided.
The petitioner disclosed the details regarding the service and death benefits entitled to the deceased that he and his family had received. The petitioner also disclosed that at the time of death of the deceased, his father drew an annual agricultural income of Rs. 40,000. Perusing the same, the Court observed that the petitioner and his family were not facing financial crises due to the death of the deceased for the period of more than 13 years.
In light of the submissions, and the precedents referred to by the Court, it was held that the rejection by respondent 4 of the compassionate appointment application of the petitioner did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Hence, the petition failed and was dismissed.
[Anand v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2250, decided on 18-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Y.G. Khobragade
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: U.L. Telgaonkar, Advocate
For the respondents: A.B. Girase, Government Pleader; C.K. Shinde, Advocate
1. AIR 2022 Supreme Court 2836
