DURGASINGH BHAVSINGH RAJPUT Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Nagargoje, learned Counsel for the petitioner and shri Phatke, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State authorities Rule. On request of learned Counsel for the parties. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petitioner's father died on 4. 10. 1976, who was in service as an assistant Teacher. As the time of death of the petitioner's father, he was minor. The mother of the petitioner, therefore, made an application on 26. 3. 1981 for her appointment on compassionate ground. That application was not considered. The petitioner, however, made his application for appointment on compassionate ground in March 1992. but it came to be rejected on 24. 2. 1997 solely on the ground that the application was not within limitation as provided under the Government Resolution dated 8. 3. 1985. It may be stated that the application made by the petitioner was rejected as it was not filed within five years as required under the Government resolution dated 26. 10. 1994. In this context, it may be stated that the petitioner has specifically stated in para Nos. 6 to 8 of his petition that his mother made an applications in the year 1981 as well as in the year 1983 for compassionate appointment to any member in the family, including the petitioner. The petitioner also made his own application in 1992 and also complied with all the necessary requirements. It is, therefore. clear that the right to claim compassionate appointment was exercised by the petitioner within one year from his attaining the majority there is no dispute that the applications made by either of the petitioner or his mother were processed in 1996 and decided in February 1997, when there was change in the policy of the Government. By the latest Government resolution dated 11. 9. 1996, the limitation of five years from the date of death of Government employee has been relaxed in case of minor claimant and the claimant is required to file application within one year on his attaining the majority. In the present case, therefore, the application made by the petitioner was well within one year from his attaining the majority. We think that the benefit under the Government Resolution of 11. 9. 1996 can, therefore, be extended in case of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of government Resolution dated 11. 9. 1996, within period of three months from today. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.