RAJARAM BHUIYA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a relief to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his deceasedfather who died on 24.5.1983 in harness. The application for compassionate appointment was moved in the year 2002. It is also alleged in the petition that uncle of the petitioner had applied for the said appointment on 11.6.1984 which was rejected on the ground that one of the dependents of the deceased i.e. the wife of the deceased, was already in employment under the respondents. Thereafter in the year 2002, the application was moved by the petitioner on the ground that he has by then attained majority.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1983; thereafter an application was moved by uncle of the petitioner for compassionate appointment which was rejected by the authorities on the ground that one of the dependents i.e. wife of the deceased employee was already in service of the BCCL and thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2002 which was at a much belated stage of about 16 years from the date of death of the employee and that is why the application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the contention and contended that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and so he could not file the application.

(3.) The time limit for filing application for compassionate appointment is normally one year from the date of death of the employee. If no application is filed well within the time, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. In the instant case, there is delay of not only months, but years and years have passed for filing the application for appointment on compassionate ground. It is also not in dispute that one of the dependents i.e. wife of the deceased was already in service while he died in harness. The appointment in public service on compassionate ground has been carved out as exception in the interest of justice as the appointment in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit and no other mode of appointment; nor any other consideration is permissible. The main purpose of such compassionate appointment is made purely on humanitarian consideration on account of the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to meet both ends' meal. The whole object of granting such appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana, 1994 4 SCC 138] has held that :-