The High Court dismissed an application by a former employee seeking an extension of compassionate appointment benefits. The Court held that the exercise was futile as the petitioner had already reached the age of 60 by the time she approached the Court.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
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.
OJC No. 6725 of 2002
The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to give compassionate appointment due to premature death of her husband on 29.08.1998.
Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and accordingly she has been appointed on 16.07.1999. But, she has been disengaged from service on 01.06.2002 without assigning any reason. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service under the opposite parties as per the compassionate ground.
Mr. S. Lenka, learned counsel for the opposite party-Cuttack Municipal Corporation contended that the petitioner was never engaged on compassionate ground, rather she has been engaged on usual course. As such, the petitioner has not filed any application for compassionate appointment and consequentially, due to over staff, the petitioner was disengaged from service on 01.06.2002. It is further contended that the petitioner is now attained the age of superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years, therefore the benefit cannot be extended to her.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that by the time the petitioner approached this Court she was of 44 years and in the meantime 16 years have been passed and, as such, the petitioner already reached at the age of 60 years. Therefore, the entire exercise would be futile in the event any direction is given to the opposite parties to extent the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Ashok
…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of compassionate appointment benefits given her age at the time she approached the Court.
Whether an order extending the benefit of compassionate appointment would be futile due to the petitioner having reached the age of 60 years.
The Petitioner
Cuttack Municipal Corporation
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
