Judgment:
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is the son of Vilasrao Sheshrao Gotmare, a Police Constable in Sakkardara Police Station, Nagpur, who died in the road accident along with his wife, on 11.02.1996. At the time of death of the parents, the petitioner was four years old. On 31.12.2011, after becoming major, he made a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, for grant of an appointment on compassionate ground and the reference was also made of earlier representation dated 15.12.1999 that his application was not considered on that occasion.
3. By the impugned order dated 13.04.2012, respondent No.2 rejected the application on the ground that the Government Resolution dated 11.09.1996 to grant employment on compassionate ground is applicable only if the application is made by the concerned person within a period of one year from the date on which he becomes major. Admittedly, the Government Resolution is of 11.09.1996. The parents of the petitioner died in the road accident on 11.02.1996. The death was sudden and unexpected. Admittedly, on the date of the accident itself, there was no such Circular and bar prior to 11.09.1996 and the said circular is made applicable retrospectively from 01.03.1996. Even on the date of the accident, i.e. 11.02.1996, the circular, in no way should have been confronted against the petitioner to deny him the legitimate claim.
4. We are inclined to observe that in view of this undisputed position on record and also the fact that the petitioners parents death was abrupt and sudden, this technical aspect ought not have been invoked against the case of the petitioner. It is relevant to note that the earlier application filed by the grandfather of the petitioner on 15.12.1999 for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground after he becomes major cannot just be overlooked. The Department should have taken note of this fact that the earlier application was filed by the petitioner through his grandfather in the year 1999 itself. The postponement of his appointment on the ground that it would be considered after he attains majority, goes in favour of the petitioner.
5. Therefore, without observing anything on the merits of the matter, so far as the Government Circular is concerned, in the present case, in view of the admitted position on record, we are inclined to grant relief, as prayed for by the petitioner.
6. For the above reasons, the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur needs to be interfered with. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses No. (i) and (ii) of the petition. There shall be no order as to costs.