- (1.) HUSBAND of the petitioner Ram Gopal Yadav had expired on 20th September, 2004 in harness. The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 8.12.2006, almost after 25 months from the date of death of the employee. Application of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 08/09.06.2007 (Annexure 3) on the ground that the applicant seeking compassionate appointment ought to have been moved within 18 months from the date of death of the employee. Since the application was moved after 25 months, therefore, it cannot be considered by the department.
(2.) THE Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and others [(2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 209] in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 has held as under:-- "18. Similarly, in SAIL vs. Madhusudan Das, this Court has observed that: (SCC p.566, para 15) "15. This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor viz. that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. when such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right." 19. In V. Sivamurthy vs. State of A.P., this Court while observing that although appointment in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, yet appointments on compassionate grounds are well-recognised exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies, highlighted the following two well-recognised contingencies as exceptions to the general rule: (SCC p. 741, para 18) "(i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service. (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner." 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. the request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crises occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts." Since the application was moved beyond the time prescribed in the scheme, therefore, the authorities were well within their jurisdiction while rejecting the application on the ground of limitation. This Court in the case of Dhani Ram Manjhi vs. Central Coalfields Limited and others, W.P. (S) No. 2131 of 2005 decided on 16.07.2012 has held that a writ of mandamus ordinarily should not be issued to the authorities to extend the time prescribed for moving the application in the absence of any provision for relaxation of the time limit.
(3.) SINCE there is no provision in the scheme for relaxation of time limit for moving an application seeking compassionate appointment, therefore, no writ can be issued for relaxation of the time limit.;