0806WP228.13-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 228 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Dhanendra Devilal Chauhan, aged about
major, Occ. Nil, R/o Post Dawwa,
Padasgaon, Tah. Sadak Arjuni, District
Gondia.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Bhartiya Adiwasi Shiv Shikshan Sanstha,
Petition is abated Garada, District Bhandara, through its
vide court's order President Shri Kashiram Lingaji Madavi, R/o
dtd.25.01.2016 Samarth Nagar, Lakhani District Bhandara.
2) The Head Master, Adiwasi Shiv Vidyalaya,
Dawwa, Tah. Sadak Arjuni, District Gondia.
3) Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
4) The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad,
Gondia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.Z.Jibhkate, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Prashant Gode, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.D.P.Thakre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 08.06.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.1-society as also the respondent Nos.3 and 4-education authorities to take appropriate action against the respondent No.2- ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2017 00:31:25 :::
0806WP228.13-Judgment 2/4 headmaster of the school for his refusal to permit the petitioner to join his duties in the school, on compassionate ground.
2. The father of the petitioner worked in the respondent No.1-society from the year 1981 till 1998. The father of the petitioner expired while in service, in the year 1998. According to the petitioner, his three brothers and his mother gave a no objection for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner in view of the death of his father. The claim of the petitioner was not considered for almost nine years and in the year 2007, the management resolved to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Though a resolution for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground was passed in the year 2007, the headmaster of the school-respondent No.2, did not permit the petitioner to join the duties. The petitioner made complaints to the education authorities. Though the education authorities also requested the headmaster and the management to take steps for permitting the petitioner to work in the school, the petitioner was not permitted to do so. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought his appointment on compassionate ground and has further sought action against the respondent No.2 for not permitting the petitioner to work in the school though he was sought to be appointed by the management on compassionate ground.
3. Shri Thakre, the learned Additional Government Pleader ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2017 00:31:25 ::: 0806WP228.13-Judgment 3/4 appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4, states that the education authorities have no objection if the management permits the petitioner to work in the school and appoints him on compassionate ground. It is stated that the education authorities had requested the headmaster to permit the petitioner to work in the school.
4. Shri Gode, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition. It is stated that the decision to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground was taken by the persons, who were not the members in the management of the school. It is submitted that the management and the headmaster rightly did not permit the petitioner to work in the school on the basis of the resolution which was not passed by the management.
5. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner had admittedly expired in the year 1998. If the petitioner was not appointed on compassionate ground within a reasonable time from the death of his father, the petitioner ought to have approached an appropriate court or forum to seek compassionate appointment. The case of the petitioner that the management had resolved to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground is disputed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. In any case, the ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2017 00:31:25 ::: 0806WP228.13-Judgment 4/4 petitioner was never permitted to work in the school till date. Nearly 20 years have lapsed from the date of the death of the father of the petitioner. The object of granting compassionate appointment would stand frustrated if compassionate appointment is granted to a person nearly 20 years from the death of the employee, who dies in harness. It is well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be sought as of a right. In the instant case, since the father of the petitioner had expired nearly 20 years earlier, it would not be proper to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in view of the death of his father in the year 1998. Instead of granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner, it would be appropriate for the respondents to appoint a person, who has recently lost the bread winner from the family and he is solely dependent on the bread winner. In the circumstances of the case, specially when the facts averred in the petition are seriously disputed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the relief cannot be granted, as granting the relief would result in frustrating the object of granting compassionate appointment.
Since the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2017 00:31:25 :::