The High Court of Bombay dismissed a Writ Petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, who was a minor at the time of his father's death. The court held that a lapse of 22 years negated the right to appointment, advising that no purpose would be served in considering the claim now.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/3
Rane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11328 OF 2016
Shri. Salil Lalmohammad Pathan.....Petitioner
V/s.
Hon’ble Registrar, High Court
and Ors.
.....Respondents
Mr. Manoj Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 3rd APRIL, 2023.
P.C. :
1. The application of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate grounds is rejected.
2. The father of the petitioner died on 22nd September,
2001 while in service. It is the contention of the petitioner that
on 9th October, 2001 the aunt of the petitioner applied for
appointment on compassionate ground. The claim for
appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on or about
22nd April, 2003. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
2/3
Rane
respondent no.3 sought information about the grounds on which
the application was rejected. The same was never provided.
On 23rd May, 2013 the petitioner made an application for
appointment on compassionate ground. The said application is
also rejected on the ground that the earlier application was
rejected in 2003.
3. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner at the time of death of his father was
a minor. Immediately, on the respondent attaining the age of
majority, the petitioner filed an application within limitation.
There was no reason for the respondents not to consider the
application of the petitioner. The rejection of the application of
the aunt of the petitioner shall not have any effect on the
application of the petitioner, as aunt of the petitioner cannot be
said to be a family member or dependent. The application of
the petitioner ought to have been independently considered.
4. Heard Mr. Nerlekar, learned Counsel for respondents
no.1 and 2.
5. The father of the petitioner died in 2001, almost 22
years have lapsed. The aunt of the petitioner (respondent no.3)
3/3
Rane
had also applied for compassionate appointment immediately.
Notice was issued to the mother of the petitioner as to whether
she had any objection. The mother of the petitioner replied that
name of the sister of the petitioner’s name be kept in the list.
According to the learned Counsel, the application of the
petitioner ought to have been considered.
6. The purpose and object to appoint a person on
compassionate grounds is to provide immediate succor to the
family of the deceased dying in harness. Almost 22 years have
lapsed. The lapse of 22 years period would be long slumber as
observed by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments. In the
case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. Versus. Rehana Akbar
Shaikh and anr. 2023 (2) Bom.C.R. 48, observed about the
purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and the long
time gap negating the right.
7. The claim was not considered in the year 2003 itself.
It would be not right to say that the same ought to have been
considered now. In light of that, no purpose will be served. The
Writ Petition is dismissed.
NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT
Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.04.06 16:48:55 +0530
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of a compassionate appointment application after an 22-year lapse in time serves any purpose.
Whether the delay of nearly 22 years negates the right to compassionate appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra & Anr. Versus. Rehana Akbar ShaikhExplained¶27
State of Maharashtra & Anr. Versus. Rehana Akbar Shaikh and anr. 2023 (2) Bom.C.R. 48 · Who else cites this
Shri. Salil Lalmohammad Pathan
Hon'ble Registrar, High Court
Respondents no.1 and 2
Respondent no.3
S.V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court