Bombay High Court
The Union Of India And Ors vs Vishal Ram Maruti Limbore on 7 June, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
8. civil wp 7740-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7740 OF 2016
Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Vishal Ram Maruti Limbore .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Vinod Joshi Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A.S. Rao Advocate for the Respondent
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 7, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made
returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
3. The petitioners have impugned the order dated
27.11.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Branch, Mumbai in O.A. No. 624 of 2014. By the
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
8. civil wp 7740-16.doc
said order, O.A. No. 624 of 2014 preferred by the respondent
came to be disposed of.
4. The respondent had preferred an application on
31.7.2013 for appointment on compassionate ground. The
said application was rejected by order dated 1.12.2013 on
the ground that the married son is not dependent on the
government servant, hence, he was not eligible for the
appointment on compassionate ground. Being aggrieved
thereby, the respondent preferred the above mentioned O.A.
which came to be disposed of.
5. The order passed by the DOPT shows that dependent
son would be eligible and it does not discriminate between
married son or unmarried son. It is an admitted fact that
thereafter clarification was issued on 25.2.2015 that a
married son can be considered for compassionate
appointment if he otherwise fulfills all the other requirements
of the scheme. It is well settled that the clarification will take
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
8. civil wp 7740-16.doc
effect from the date of original order which is 16.1.2013. It is
clear from this clarification that a married son, if he
otherwise fulfills all the other requirements as laid down in
the department's OM dated 16.1.2013, could be considered
for compassionate appointment. From the impugned order,
it is clear that the sole ground for rejection of the application
of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground
was that he was a married son and therefore, not dependent
on the government servant.
6. In view of the above facts, the Tribunal directed the
respondents i.e the petitioners herein to consider the
request of the respondent - for appointment on
compassionate ground afresh within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It was
observed in the said order that the criteria should not be
applied of married son or unmarried son but only of a son of
government employee. It was further observed in the order
that it would be open to the respondents i.e present
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
8. civil wp 7740-16.doc
petitioners to consider whether the applicant was dependent
on the mother or not and also whether he was also eligible or
not at the time of the death of the employee.
7. The petitioners have only been asked to consider the
case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate
ground and it would be open to the petitioners to consider
whether the applicant was dependent on mother or not and
also he was eligible or not at the time of the death of the
employee. In view of these facts, we do not find any ground
to interfere in the said order. The petition is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
8. The petitioners to consider the application of the
respondent for appointment on compassionate ground within
a period of three months from today.
9. No order as to costs.
[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
