AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Municipal
Corporation.
In this case, the petitioner is claiming compassionate
appointment on the ground that his father has become traceless in
2010 and still he is traceless. Presumption in law, if the person
remains traceless for seven years, in such a situation, he will be
treated to have been died.
The father of the petitioner was an employee of the Ara
Municipal Corporation and after he became traceless a complaint
was lodged on 28.06.2010 and where-after the petitioner has filed an
application for compassionate appointment, but he has been
deprived of the compassionate appointment though his father
remained traceless for more than seven years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
condition of the family is in very bad shape and the basic idea of the
compassionate appointment is to mitigate the financial hardship. He
further submits that the family is in penury, they are facing great
adversity to carry out day- to-day life, so the petitioner is entitled for
compassionate appointment.
Let the respondent-Ara Municipal Corporation consider
the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a
period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this order as the father of the petitioner has become traceless
since 28.06.2010, now seven years have crossed, naturally it will be
treated that the father of the petitioner has died.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ
application is disposed of.