Bombay High Court
Dhanendra Devilal Chauhan vs Bhartiya Adiwasi Shiv Shikshan ... on 8 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
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-
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
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
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
