The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application.
The Court observed that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is to enable the family to tide over an immediate crisis that may result from the death of an employee.
Brief Facts:
The respondent is the son of Subhashrao Bhende. Subhashrao Bhende died on 19.11.2002 in harness. He was working as Police Constable. The mother of the respondent had applied for employment on compassionate grounds. The name of the mother of the respondent was taken on the waiting list. Thereafter, the respondent attained majority and applied for the substitution of his name in place of the name of his mother. The name of the respondent was substituted. Though the name of the respondent was substituted, it was informed there is no provision for substitution and therefore, the respondent filed the Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal directed petitioner No.2 herein to consider the name of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate grounds. The name of the respondent was not considered on the ground that the family is having one-acre agricultural land and their financial condition is sound. The order was again challenged.
The Tribunal allowed the Application and directed petitioner No.2 herein to consider the case of the respondent herein as per his seniority in the waiting list for appointment on compassionate grounds. Again, petitioner No.2. did not consider the candidature of the respondent. Therefore, again, the respondent approached the Tribunal. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal observed that the petitioners are intentionally not providing the service and committing the breach of order of the Tribunal, and hence are directed to give the employment to the respondent on compassionate grounds within a period of one month.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per directives given in the GR, the candidates who have completed 40 years of age, their names shall be deleted from the seniority list. In view of this, the name of the respondent’s mother was deleted on completion of her 40 years of age and it was informed to the mother of the respondent that her name is deleted and there is no provision for substitution of the name of other family member.
Further, the Counsel argued that she had refused to accept the offer of class-IV category post and on refusing the offer, she lost her right to claim the appointment on compassionate grounds. It was submitted that considering the policy decisions, the financial status of the respondent’s family, and the guidelines of the Apex Court, the petitioners have rightly rejected his claim of compassionate appointment.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that at the time of the death of the father of the respondent, he was 9 years of age and his mother was educated up to 9th standard and therefore, could not be appointed on compassionate grounds. The grounds for refusal to accept the job were not raised and the earlier orders were not challenged by the petitioners. The orders passed by the Tribunal attained finality. Hence, proceed to dismiss the petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Court remarked that the need to offer succor by offering an appointment on compassionate grounds to save the family from financial distress did not really exist on the date of the institution of the present proceedings. The offer of compassionate grounds was not accepted by the respondent’s mother in the year 2007, and therefore, that claim came to an end.
The Court observed that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but is to enable the family to tide over an immediate crisis that may result from the death of an employee. The respondent objected to calculating the pension while considering the financial status of the respondent. It cannot be said that by taking into account the pensionary payment the petitioners have considered an extraneous circumstance.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant aspects while issuing the direction for appointing the respondent on a compassionate basis.
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs Suraj Subhashrao Bhende
Coram: Hon’ble Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Hon’ble Justice Vrushali V. Joshi
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 3160 OF 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. N. P. Mehata
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. N. R. Saboo
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
