MAKTUMSAB Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner contends that his father Mehaboobsab was working as a Driver with the City Municipal Council, Bagalkot. He had made an application as per Annexure 'A' dated 6.7.1989 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.1989. Since he did not receive any response from the second respondent with regard to his application, he continued to work with the City Municipal Council, Bagalkot, till his death i.e., 6.1.1991. It is further contended that respondent No.2 by his Order dated 17.5.1991 granted retrospective voluntary retirement to the father of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.1989. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order is illegal for the reason that the rules do not authorise the second respondent to pass an order granting permission retrospectively for voluntary retirement of a public servant. The petitioner having passed SSLC examination made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds. The first respondent by his communication dated 16.4.1997 intimated the petitioner that since his father was permitted to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 31.10.1989, his application cannot be considered. The petitioner has produced a copy of the said communication dated 16.4.1997 at Annexure 'F'. Therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order at Annexure 'F' and for a mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint him on compassionate grounds in the office of the second respondent.

(2.) SRI Hebballi, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that though the father of the petitioner had made an application dated 6.7.1989 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.1989, the said application was not considered. Therefore, he continued to work with the second respondent till his death on 6.1.1991. After the death of the petitioner's father, second respondent has passed an order retiring him retrospectively from 31.10.1989. It is argued that the rules do not provide for according retrospective permission for voluntary retirement of any public servant. Therefore, the said order is a nullity. The father of the petitioner has left behind the mother of the petitioner, four sisters and three brothers. The mother of the petitioner also died on 4.3.1993. The petitioner has to maintain huge family after the death of his parents. Therefore, he wants employment in order to tide over the financial crisis of his family on account of the untimely death of the bread winner of the family. The reasons assigned for rejection of the application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is that the father of the petitioner was not in service on the date of his death because he was permitted to retire retrospectively w.e.f. 31.10.1989. The said order is totally erroneous.

(3.) THE undisputed facts are that petitioner's father was employed with the City Municipal Council, Bagalkot. He had made an application dated 6.7.1989 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.1989. Since he did not receive response to his application, he continued to work till the date of his death i.e., till 6.1.1991. It is also clear that the second respondent passed an order on 17.5.1991 granting retrospective voluntary retirement to the father of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.1989. The petitioner filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father. The said application was dismissed on 16.4.1997. There is a long delay of 12 years in approaching this Court challenging the validity of the order at Annexure 'F'. It is well settled that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a long lapse of time and after the crisis is over. The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning members of the family. {See UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL vs. STATE OF HARYANA1 and JAGADISH PRASAD vs. STATE OF BIHAR2.} In this connection, it is apposite to quote a passage from the decision of the Apex Court in PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs. ASHWINIKUMAR TANEJA3, which is as under.