Bombay High Court
Radhabai Sugriv Survase And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 26 April, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
10862.2015 WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10862 OF 2015
1] Smt. Radhabai wd/o. Sugriv Survase,
Age: 49 Years, Occu: Household
2] Akrur s/o. Sugriv Survase,
Age: 27 Years, Occu: Nil
Beed.
Both R/o. Kolwadi, Tq. & Dist.
PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development &
Water Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
[Copy to be served on G.P.
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad]
2] The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed
3] The Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed
4] The Executive Engineer [W]
Zilla Parishad, Beed.
5] The Deputy Engineer [W]
Zilla Parishad, Sub-Division,
Beed, Dist. Beed. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:54:52 :::
10862.2015 WP.odt
2
...
Mr. Sanjay B. Bhosale, Advocate for the
Petitioners
Mr. V.S.Badakh, AGP for Respondent - State
Mr. K.U.More, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE: 26.04.2016
JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]
Heard.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
3] This Petition takes exception to the
impugned letter dated 15.04.2015 / 18.04.2015
[Exhibit-F] issued by Respondent No.2. There
is further prayer in the Petition, seeking
directions to respondent No.2 to consider the
claim of petitioner No.2 for appointment on
compassionate ground, as per the Scheme and
Government Resolutions dated 26.10.1994,
20.08.1996 and 22.08.2005.
10862.2015 WP.odt
4] It is the case of the petitioners
that the husband of petitioner No.1, and the
father of petitioner No.2 was serving with
respondent Nos.2 to 5 on the post of 'Mail
Kamgar', in the pay sale of Rs.2550-
55-2660-60-3200, till his unfortunate death
on 15th March, 1990. He was the only earning
member of the family and the entire family
was depending upon the remuneration received
by him. Petitioner No.1 filed an application
on 3rd September, 1990, with the office of
respondent No.2 along with all necessary
documents within the prescribed period of
limitation, stating therein that the husband
of petitioner No.1 died on 15th March, 1990,
while he was on duty and the family of the
petitioners is facing financial hardship,
therefore, petitioner No.2 may be appointed
on compassionate ground on any class-IV post,
as per the scheme.
10862.2015 WP.odt
5] It is the case of petitioner No.1
that she was asked to work privately in the
house of the Executive Engineer, she,
therefore, relying upon the assurance of the
said Officer that petitioner No.1 will get
appointment on compassionate ground,
continued to work years together in the
house of the Executive Engineer [Works],
Zilla Parishad, Beed. However, it is the
case of the petitioners that, the said
Officer did not take steps to appoint
petitioner No.1 on the Class-IV post on
compassionate ground. At the relevant time,
when the mother of petitioner No.2 applied,
petitioner No.2 was 2 years of age, and
thereafter, on attaining the age of majority
on 22.12.2014, petitioner No.2 applied for
appointment on compassionate ground.
However, respondent No.2, without considering
relevant provisions of the Government
Resolutions issued from time to time,
10862.2015 WP.odt
directly rejected the legitimate claim of the
petitioners by the impugned letter, on the
ground that, since the father of petitioner
No.2 was working under the MAARUF Agreement,
and as such, he is not entitled to be
appointed on compassionate ground.
6]
The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners places reliance on unreported
Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at
Aurangabad, in the case of Vishnu s/o. Namdeo
Lokhande Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others in Writ Petition No.8463/2015, decided
on 18.12.2015, the Judgments of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Sharad Vs.
Vishnu Mali Vs. The State of Maharashtra &
others [W.P. No.5501 of 2008 and connected
Petitions, decided on 28.11.2008], Jalindar
Rawan Awate Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others
[W.P.No.5286 of 2011, decided on 17.10.2011],
Sunita w/o. Navnath Lokhande Vs. The State of
10862.2015 WP.odt
Maharashtra and others [W.P. No.2654 of 2013
and connected Petition decided on
05.09.2013], and Namdeo s/o. Tukaram Sasane
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others [W.P.
No.106 of 2015, decided on 13.01.2015], and
submits that in the said decided cases also
the controversy whether appointment can be on
compassionate ground given to the legal
representatives of the deceased employee, who
accepted MAARUF Agreement was involved. In
all the afore-mentioned unreported Judgments,
this Court has taken a view that rejection of
the claim of appointment on compassionate
ground on the ground that the deceased
employee was working under MAARUF Agreement
was erroneous, and accordingly Writ Petitions
were allowed. Therefore, he submits that,
the present Petition may be allowed.
7] The learned counsel appearing for
the Respondents, vehemently, opposed the
10862.2015 WP.odt
prayer in the Petition and submit that, the
Petition may be rejected.
8] We have carefully perused the
reasons assigned by respondent No.2 in the
impugned communication, which is placed at
Exhibit-F of the compilation of the Writ
Petition, and also the other documents placed
on record, and the Judgments of this Court on
which reliance is placed by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners. The
only reason assigned in the impugned
communication is that the father of
petitioner No.2 accepted MAARUF agreement,
and therefore, those employees, who have
accepted MAARUF agreement, no appointment can
be given on compassionate ground to their
legal representatives. An issue raised in
this Petition is no more res integra and is
covered by the Judgments mentioned in the
foregoing paragraph.
10862.2015 WP.odt
9] In that view of the matter, the
impugned communication is quashed and set
aside, and the respondents are directed to
reconsider the application of the petitioners
afresh on its own merits keeping in view the
relevant Government Resolutions / Scheme
prepared by the respondents, and if
petitioner No.2 found otherwise eligible,
take necessary steps to include his name in
the seniority list of the eligible
candidates, seeking appointment on
compassionate ground, as expeditiously as
possible, however, within 6 months from
today. We make it clear that, the
petitioners' claim should not be rejected on
the ground that the father of petitioner
No.2 had accepted MAARUF agreement. We
further make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits about the
entitlement of petitioner No.2, and it is
10862.2015 WP.odt
left to the respondents to reconsider the
case of the petitioner afresh.
10] The petition is partly allowed.
Rule made absolute on the above terms. The
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S.PATIL,J.] [S.S.SHINDE,J.]
Sd/-
DDC
