Mother Would Hardly Get 4-5 Years In Service & No Retiral Benefits: Bombay HC Replaces Mother’s Name With Son’s For Compassionate Appointment
The Bombay High Court replaced the name of a mother with her son seeking compassionate appointment stating that even if the mother were to be appointed, she would hardly get “4-5 years as a compassionate appointee and would not be eligible for retiral benefits.”
A Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice R.M. Joshi observed, “The widow had moved an Application after she crossed 45 years to request that the son may be given an appointment. She was under the belief that after turning 45, she did not have a right to seek compassionate appointment. Though the Petitioner’s mother is eligible even today, we are exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction to replace her name with the name of the Petitioner, since the mother would be getting hardly 4-5 years as a compassionate appointee and would not be eligible for retiral benefits.”
Advocate Yogesh Jadhav represented the petitioner, while AGP S.K. Tambe appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner had filed an application to substitute/replace the name of his mother with his name while applying for compassionate appointment following the death of his father. The petitioner’s mother too had been waitlisted after she applied for the compassionate appointment.
The Court noted that the widow was currently 55-56 years of age and even if the Court were to grant compassionate appointment to her, being a class IV employee, she would retire at the age of 60 after putting in around 4- 5 years in employment. “She would not even be entitled for pension and the moment she gets compassionate appointment, present pension payable on account of the deceased husband’s service, would also stop,” the Court remarked.
Therefore, the Court made the parties aware of the Central Government’s policy ‘Scheme For Compassionate Appointment Under Central Government’ which indicated that even if an eligible candidate who was enlisted/waitlisted for compassionate appointment, “becomes age barred while awaiting such employment, meaning thereby that the candidate crosses the age of 45 years, the name of such candidate is not to be deleted or de-listed.”
However, the Bench decided that since the widow was almost about 55-56 years of age, it would be purposeless to grant her compassionate appointment for 4-5 years, because she would not be entitled to any service or retiral benefits.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Durgadas v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:7749-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Yogesh Jadhav and Girish Nagori
Respondents: AGP S.K. Tambe; Advocate L.V. Sangit
