Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment must be determined as of the Date of Death of the Employee

The petitioner’s father, a Peon under the Municipal Corporation, Korba, died in harness on 11.03.2020

On 15.03.2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment

At the time of his father's death, the petitioner was 44.5 years old

However, the respondent authorities rejected his application via an impugned order dated 15.04.2021 on the grounds that as of the date of consideration, the petitioner had exceeded the maximum age limit of 45 years

The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that the period of the pandemic should be excluded from limitation calculations and that eligibility should be determined based on the date of death

1. Whether the eligibility of a candidate for compassionate appointment, specifically regarding age, should be determined as of the date of the employee's death or the date of consideration of the application

2. Whether the period of the COVID-19 pandemic (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) should be excluded when computing limitation or eligibility periods for compassionate appointment

The Court applied the well-settled principle that the relevant date for considering a compassionate appointment application is the date of the employee's death

It relied on the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, which directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 be excluded for purposes of limitation under any general or special laws

Regarding the scope of judicial review, the Court cited State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar (2010), establishing that such appointments are subject to eligibility and vacancy

The Court cited Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994), which held that a Court can only direct the "consideration" of a claim rather than mandating an appointment

The Court observed that the petitioner was 44.5 years old when his father died on 11.03.2020, placing him within the "zone of consideration" under the then-prevailing policy

The respondents erred by rejecting the application solely because the petitioner crossed the 45-year threshold during the processing period

The Court reasoned that the authorities failed to account for the Supreme Court's mandate in the Suo Motu limitation case, which protected litigants from being penalized for delays occurring between March 2020 and February 2022

Applying the law to the facts, the Court found that because the petitioner satisfied the age criteria on the date of death, the subsequent lapse of time during the pandemic could not be used as a ground for disqualification

The Court held that the issue of age shall not impede the petitioner's application as it must be considered based on the policy prevailing at the relevant time (date of death)

The respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the eligibility criteria as of 11.03.2020 and complete the exercise within 60 days