L.D. Ambhore vs State of M.P. and Another

R.S. Jha, J.

11.The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.01.2010 by which the petitioner''s claim for compassionate appointment in place of the petitioner''s father who died on 05.01.1990 while working as Constable in the establishment of the respondents has been rejected. It is stated that the petitioner''s mother filed an application on 13.02.1990 seeking compassionate appointment for her children who were minor at the relevant time. Thereafter several reminders were given but by impugned communication dated 18.01.2010 the petitioner has been informed that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered after a long lapse of seven years from the date of death of the employee in view of the policy of the State Government notified on 18.08.2008.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the policy which was prevalent at the time of death of the petitioner''s father should have been taken into consideration and the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected by relying upon the subsequent policy dated 18.08.2008 which provides that the application for compassionate appointment can be considered only within seven years from the date of thereafter death of the employee.

The issue as to whether the scheme for compassionate appointment as prevalent on the date of death of the employee; the date of application or the date of consideration of the application has been considered and decided by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia and Another, and it has been held by the Full Bench that the policy, as applicable and prevalent on the date of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment, would prevail.

Apart from the above, it is observed that the petitioner''s father died in the year 1990 and the application seeking compassionate appointment was filed by the mother of the petitioner in the year 1990 itself and thereafter after a lapse of 20 years the application was rejected on 18.01.2010. It is further observed that the petitioner has challenged order dated 18.01.2010 after a long lapse of 3 years without giving any explanation regarding delay and laches in filing the present petition. In view of the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this court, I find no merits in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed.