Shri. Salil Lalmohammad Pathan vs Honble Registrar, High Court And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3334 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:10367-DB

            Rane                                               1/3

                    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 22 nd 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

Rane 2/3

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)

Rane 3/3

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.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)