Nileshkumar D. Pateliya vs Executive Engineer and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to immediately take up necessary procedure for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground and directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and grant the same as well as quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 02nd September 2008 at Annexure-L to the petition.

The father of the petitioner who was working under the respondent-authority as Watchman died in harness on 07th August 2003. The petitioner had made an application on 20th October 2003 to the respondents reserving right of compassionate appointment for the petitioner after attaining the age of majority.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authority has erroneously rejected the request of the petitioner even though the father of the petitioner had died in harness. According to him, since the father of the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent authority, he ought to have been granted appointment on compassionate ground.

As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, there is no dispute that the father of the petitioner has died on 07th August 2003 and the application for appointment on compassionate ground for reserving rights of compassionate appointment was made till he attains majority.

It is required to be noted that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardships due to death of the breadwinner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisages specifically otherwise to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above principle is laid down in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, As held in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, there cannot be any reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The aforesaid view has further been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of the Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Anil Badyakar and Ors. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 112. In the present case, the petitioner is not able to point out any provision in the scheme which enables the petitioner to apply for appointment on compassionate ground after he attains majority. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the authority has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner in view of the same.

In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as costs.