Bombay High Court
Seema Hiralal Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 wp11235-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11235 OF 2015
Ku. Seema Hiralal Pawar,
Age : 23 years, Occu. At present
Nil, R/o At Post Shirodi (Kh.),
Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. V.G. Salgare, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A.G. Magre, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1/State
Mr. Zareef Khan Pathan, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 2 and 3
----
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVEED ON : 23rd JUNE, 2016
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 8th JULY, 2016
JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
2 wp11235-2015
consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard
finally.
2. The petitioner has taken exception to the order
dated 7th October, 2015, passed by respondent No. 2
whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate
ground has been rejected.
3. The father of the petitioner, namely, Hiralal
Malanbai Pawar was serving as an Assistant Teacher at
Bazar Savangi, Taluka Khultabad, District Aurangabad in
the Primary School, run by respondent No. 2. He died in
harness on 24th June, 1998. The petitioner is the
daughter of deceased Hiralal. She submitted an
application before respondent No. 2 for her appointment
on compassionate ground on 13th July, 2015. The said
application came to be rejected by respondent No. 2 as
per the impugned order on the ground that the said
application has not been filed within a period of one
year from the date of death of her father i.e. deceased
Hiralal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that per the Government Resolution dated 20 th May, 2015,
3 wp11235-2015
it was incumbent upon respondent No. 3 to apprise the
family members of the deceased Hiralal about the scheme
for appointment on compassionate ground. No such
information was given to the petitioner. Therefore,
there has been delay on her part in submitting the
application for her appointment on compassionate ground.
Relying on the judgment in the case of Bigan Manjhi Vs.
The Central Coalfields Limited and others 2016 (1) JBCJ
369, he submits that the delay in submitting the
application by the petitioner for her appointment on
compassionate ground may be ordered to be condoned. He
further relied on the judgment in the case of Balbir
Kaur Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2000 (2) CLR 631,
wherein it has been held that an authority of State
under Article 12 of the Constitution is obliged to act
in terms of avowed objective of social and economic
justice as enshrined in the Constitution like a model
and ideal employer in the matter of appointment on
compassionate ground. He, therefore, prays that the
impugned order may be quashed and set aside and
respondent No. 2 may be directed to issue order of
appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground,
as per the Government Resolutions dated 23rd August, 1996
4 wp11235-2015
and 20th May, 2015.
5. As against this, respondent No. 2 filed
affidavit-in-reply for himself and on behalf of
respondent No. 3 and denied the claim of the petitioner
for her appointment on compassionate ground on the sole
count that there has been inordinate delay in submitting
the application for such appointment by the petitioner.
The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 relying
on the contents of the said reply, prays for dismissal
of the writ petition.
6. As per the Government Resolution dated 23rd
August, 1996, the revised scheme for appointment on
compassionate ground of the deceased Government servant
was introduced. In Clause-6 of the said Government
Resolution, there is mention that the Establishment
Officer should apprise the family members of the
deceased Government servant about the scheme for
appointment on compassionate ground within fifteen days
of the death of such Government servant or at the time
of sending his/her papers for family pension.
7. As per the Government Resolution dated 26th
5 wp11235-2015
October, 1994, the application for appointment on
compassionate ground was required to be made within a
period of five years from the date of death of the
Government servant. The Government Resolution dated 11 th
September, 1996 contains that in case the eligible
dependent of the Government servant happens to be a
minor at the time of his death, such minor dependent may
apply for appointment on compassionate ground within a
period of one year of attaining the age of majority. In
clause (d) of the Government Resolution dated 20 th May,
2015, the Head of the Administrative Department is
empowered to condone the delay upto two years after one
year of attaining the age of majority by the dependent
of the deceased Government servant (i.e. upto three
years from the date of attaining majority).
8. From the above provisions of the Government
Resolutions dated 23rd August, 1996 and 20th May, 2015, it
is clear that it is incumbent on the part of the
Establishment Officer to inform the family members of
the deceased Government servant within fifteen days of
his death about the scheme for appointment on
compassionate ground as also about the provision for
6 wp11235-2015
making such application by a minor dependent within one
year of his/her attaining the age of majority.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that no such information was given by respondent Nos. 2
and 3 to the family members of deceased Hiralal.
Respondent No. 2 has denied in paragraph of the reply
that it was incumbent on the part of respondent Nos. 2
and 3 to appraise the family members of deceased Hiralal
about the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground
as well as about the entitlement of the minor dependent
of deceased Hiralal to apply for such appointment within
one year after attaining the age of majority. It is
strange to note that a responsible officer like the
Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad denies the
contents of clause (6) of the Government Resolution
dated 23rd August, 1996 and clause (1) (b) of the
Government Resolution dated 20th May, 2015, which speak
in unequivocal terms about the responsibility of the
Establishment Officer to apprise the family members of
the deceased Government servant about the scheme for
appointment on compassionate ground as also about the
entitlement of the minor dependent of the deceased
7 wp11235-2015
Government servant to apply for such appointment within
one year of attaining the age of majority. Albeit, the
disputed question of fact about having informed the
family members of deceased Hiralal about the scheme for
appointment on compassionate ground cannot be considered
by this Court in writ jurisdiction, more particularly
when it is not even mentioned by the petitioner in her
application dated 13th July, 2015 that for want of
knowledge about the scheme for appointment on
compassionate ground, she could not make application
within one year of her attaining the age of majority.
There is absolutely no reason given by the petitioner
for the delay in making such an application.
10. The date of birth of the petitioner is 15 th May,
1991. She attained the age of majority on 14th May,
2009. The petitioner submitted the application for her
appointment on compassionate ground on 13th July, 2015
i.e. after about six years and two months of her
attaining the age of majority. Undisputedly, the father
of the petitioner died on 24th June, 1998. It is well
settled that the object of granting compassionate
appointment is to enable the family members of the
8 wp11235-2015
deceased Government servant to tide over the sudden
crisis and to relieve it from financial destitution due
to untimely death of their bread winner. The
compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a
lapse of reasonable period. It is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time in future. An
application for compassionate employment must be
preferred without undue delay. The present petitioner is
claiming appointment on compassionate ground after about
17 years of the death of her father. Moreover, she did
not make the application for such appointment within one
year of her attaining the age of majority. The delay of
more than six years in making an application for such
appointment after her attaining the age of majority,
has remained unexplained. In the circumstances,
respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have committed any
mistake in rejecting the application of the petitioner
for appointment on compassionate ground.
11. Considering the distinguishable facts in the
case of Bigan Manjhi (supra), which do not disclose as
to what was the exact delay on the part of the appellant
therein in claiming the appointment on compassionate
9 wp11235-2015
ground, the direction given in that judgment for
reconsideration of the claim of the appellant therein
sympathetically would be of no help to the petitioner
herein.
12. In the case of Balbir Kaur (supra), the
question for determination before the Hon'ble Apex Court
was the interpretation of Family Benefit Scheme as
introduced in NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989 and the
consequences thereof on the existing welfare measure as
contained in NJSC Agreement in 1983. The learned counsel
for the petitioner in the present case could not show as
to how the said judgment would advance the case of the
petitioner.
13. In the above circumstances, we are of the
considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to
claim appointment on compassionate ground after about 17
years of the death of her father and particularly after
about six years of her attaining the age of majority. We
are, therefore, not inclined to grant the relief sought
for by the petitioner. The petition is liable to be
dismissed.
10 wp11235-2015
14. In the result, we pass the following order.
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Rule stands discharged accordingly.
(iii) The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE ig JUDGE
npj/wp11235-2015
