Bombay High Court
Rajesh Ravishankar Gupta vs The Managing Director, M.S.E.D. ... on 20 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2003WP2174.07-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2174 OF 2007
PETITIONER :- Rajesh Ravishankar Gupta, Aged about 33
years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Ravi Kamal
Niwas, Plot No.S-249, Sector-4, Airoli, New
Mumbai.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The Managing Director, Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.,
Prakashgad, Second Floor, Plot No.G-09, Ali
Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-
400 051.
2) The Chief General Manager, Maharashtra
State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.,
Prakashgad, Second Floor, Plot No.G-09, Ali
Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-
400 051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
Mr.A.D.Mohgaonkar, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 20.03.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the notice of
the respondent No.1 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his
services should not be terminated due to the invalidation of his caste
claim.
2003WP2174.07-Judgment 2/4
2) The father of the petitioner was working as a sub-engineer
with the respondents when he expired while in service on 19/01/1986.
The mother of the petitioner was appointed as a peon on 16/07/1987
on compassionate ground. After ten years of service, the mother of the
petitioner resigned from service in 1998 on health grounds with a
request to the respondents that the petitioner, her son may be
appointed in her place. Since the case of the petitioner was governed by
the scheme for compassionate appointment dated 16/04/1975, the
petitioner was interviewed on 29/11/1997 and was appointed as a sub-
engineer on compassionate ground on 31/01/1998. It was however the
case of the respondents that the petitioner was appointed on a post
meant for the scheduled tribes on compassionate ground and hence the
caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the scrutiny committee for
verification. After the scrutiny committee invalidated the caste claim of
the petitioner, the petitioner was served with the impugned notice,
asking him to show cause as to why his services should not be
terminated. The petitioner has challenged the said notice in the instant
petition.
3) According to the petitioner, since the petitioner was
appointed on compassionate ground, the respondents could not have
applied the reservation policy while making the appointment. It is
stated in the petition that the petitioner was informed by the
2003WP2174.07-Judgment 3/4
establishment of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground in place of his mother would be
considered and he would be interviewed. According to the petitioner,
since the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, the
respondents committed a serious error in proposing to terminate the
services of the petitioner on the invalidation of his caste claim.
4) Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for the respondents,
has supported the order of the respondents. It is submitted that the
show cause notice was rightly issued to the petitioner after his caste
claim was invalidated. It is stated that since the petitioner was
appointed on a post meant for the scheduled tribes and since the caste
claim of the petitioner was invalidated, his services were rightly sought
to be terminated.
5) It appears from the order appointing the petitioner on
compassionate ground that the appointment of the petitioner is made
on the basis of the C.S.-28 dated 16/04/1975 that deals with
compassionate appointment. At the relevant time, the respondents
could not have applied the reservation policy, while appointing the
petitioner on compassionate ground. There is nothing in the policy of
the respondents that provides for the application of the reservation
policy while making compassionate appointment. Nothing has been
2003WP2174.07-Judgment 4/4
pointed out on behalf of the respondents to show that there is a rule or
regulation providing for application of the reservation policy while
making compassionate appointment. In the absence of any policy to
apply the reservation policy, the action on the part of the respondents of
applying the reservation policy while appointing the petitioner appears
to be bad-in-law, as the object of granting compassionate appointment
is to provide succor to the dependents of the deceased or the ailing
employee. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of this
court, in Writ Petition No.4185 of 2015 (Vinodkumar Singh Rajkumar
Singh Thakur v. Staet of Maharashtra and others) dated 14/01/2016 in
this regard.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned notice is quashed and set aside. It is hereby
held that the respondents would not be entitled to terminate the
services of the petitioner in view of the invalidation of his caste claim.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
