“If the cut-off date is not even giving normal gestation period and the period to get notice/ knowledge of the notification, the purpose of the provision would be defeated,” said the division bench of justices Vinay Joshi and MS Jawalkar.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by a 31-year-old resident of Hinganghat in Wardha district, whose plea for compassionate appointment after his father’s untimely death was rejected on the ground that a third child was born in their household on March 10, 2002, more than two months after the cut-off date.

The cut-off was notified through a GR dated 28 March 2001, which declared that families of government/ semi-government employees whose third child was born after December 31, 2001 would be disqualified from claiming appointment on compassionate grounds.

The Wardha resident had approached the court, contending that in all legislations pertaining to the small family rule, the government had provided a year’s notice barring for appointment on compassionate grounds, where only nine months’ notice was provided.

The court concurred with the appellant, stating, “The only reason for prescribing such a period of one year is to get the knowledge of issuance of notification to the person and to grant some appropriate leeway.”

The bench noted that the cut-off date for appointment on compassionate grounds was exactly nine months after the date of issuance of the GR, saying, “Thus, the prescribed cut-off date is erroneous and not based on any discernible principle and the purpose of granting protection itself is defeated.”

The bench accepted the appellant’s arguments and declared him eligible for compassionate appointment. It also directed the Chandrapur zilla parishad, where his late father worked, to absorb him within three months.