1. The petitioner, herein, has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 2/4.12.2010 rejecting the application of the petitioner and to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground.
2. The father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent, died in harness on 30.04.2003 and therefore the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. After various correspondences, ultimately the request of the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondent authority. Therefore the present petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.
3. The contention raised in this petition by Mr. Supehia, learned advocate for the petitioner is that the action of the respondent authority is totally with non-application of mind because the petitioner after attaining the age of 18 years on 30.08.2004 made an application for compassionate appointment on 16.06.2005. He has submitted that the authority has rejected the representation mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not become major within a period of six months from the date of death of his father.
4. Mr.
Pranav Dave, learned AGP has supported the order of the respondent authority and has submitted that the authority has passed the order taking into consideration the relevant scheme prevailing at that particular time. He has submitted that the application of the petitioner shall not of much worth as there is a delay of about more than six months is preferring representation by the petitioner after he turned major.
5. This Court has gone through the materials placed on record including the various communications between the parties. There is no dispute that the father of the petitioner died on 30.04.2003 and the application for appointment on compassionate ground was first made on 06.06.2003. Admittedly, the petitioner was a minor then and therefore the representation was not considered. Thereafter the petitioner turned major on 30.08.2004 and accordingly representation ought to have been made within a period of six months thereafter. It is required to be noted that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadwinner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The delay on the part of the petitioner shows that there was no crisis in the family, otherwise the petitioner would have preferred the representation without any delay.
5.1 Even otherwise, Clause 8 of the G.R. dated 10.03.2000 mentions that in no case the compassionate appointment shall be given in any circumstances after waiting till any member of the dependent family who was minor at the time of the death of the employee becomes major. At the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was minor and if there was no earning member in the family, the mother ought to have applied for the appointment on compassionate grounds. But no such representation was made by the mother. Mr. Supehia is not in a position to dispute or rebut this fact. In that view of the matter, the ground taken by the respondent authority is just and proper and does not require any interference.
6. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top