Bombay HC denies petition seeking appointment on compassionate basis after 11 years of attaining majority

Mumbai: “The compassionate appointment is not a vested right,” observed the Bombay High Court (HC) while rejecting a petition by one Dilip Jaiswar seeking appointment on compassionate ground with Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT), 11 years after attaining majority.

A division bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and RN Laddha recently disposed of a petition filed by Jaiswar challenging decision of the MbPT refusing him job on compassionate grounds stating that 11 years was too long a time to apply for the job after attaining majority.

Jaiswar’s father, Sukhraj, used to work with the MbPT as dock labour. He died in an accident in 1995 when Jaiswar was a minor. He attained the age of majority in the year 2004. MbPT sanctioned family pension in 2007, however, the same was discontinued in 2011.

In 2015, Jaiswar applied for appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected stating that his father did not die while working on duty.

He challenged this before the HC claiming that his application was rejected on erroneous ground.

Petitioner applied for the job eleven years after attaining majority

MbPT contended that Jaiswar had applied for the job on  compassionate grounds, 11 years after attaining majority. Also, the family was receiving family pension.

The judges did not agree with MbPT’s argument that Jaiswar was not entitled to job on compassionate ground since his father had died in an accident and not while performing his duty. “… the petitioner had right to apply for appointment on compassionate ground,” said HC.

The court expressed: “The purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased dying in harness. With the delay and passage of time, the claim of the appointment on compassionate ground would stand defeated.”

Judges did not grant relief to Petitioner

However, the judges did not grant relief to Jaiswar noting that he did not apply for the job for 11 years after attaining majority.

“However, the fact that for 11 years upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner did not apply seeking appointment on compassionate  ground itself disentitles the petitioner from claiming the benefit of  compassionate appointment… The compassionate appointment is not a vested right,” it said while disposing of the petition.

“The long slumber of 11 years in making an application certainly would disentitle the petitioner from claiming appointment on compassionate ground. Even if it is assumed that the time for making application may not be considered with mathematical precision, the application has to be made within reasonable time,” it concluded.