Bombay High Court
Smt. Vibha Prabhakar Bhute And ... vs State Of Maharashra, Through ... on 10 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
6wp8042.2019.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8042 OF 2019
(Smt. Vibha Prabhakar Bhute and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Ministry of Water Resource Department, Mantralaya Mumbai and others)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. R.S. Khobragade, Advocate for petitioners
Ms. N.P. Mehta, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/State
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2021.
Heard Mr. Khobragade, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
2. The petitioners have challenged the
judgment and order dated 08.02.2019, dismissing the
application filed by the petitioners regarding grant of
permission to substitute name of petitioner No.1 by the
name of her daughter i.e. petitioner No.2 in the waiting
list that has been prepared by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for
granting appointment to the dependents of deceased
employee on compassionate ground.
3. The husband of the petitioner No.1 died on
03.10.2008 while in service. After his death, the
petitioner No.1, the widow filed an application for
6wp8042.2019.odt
appointing her on compassionate basis in place of her
husband. Name of petitioner No.1 was taken in the
waiting list of the persons to be granted appointment on
compassionate basis. After a long wait for the
appointment, the petitioners made an application on
24.09.2013 for substituting the name of daughter of
petitioner No.1 i.e. petitioner No.2 in her place in the
waiting list, as her daughter by that time had turned 18
years of age. This application was rejected by
respondent No.4 on the ground that there was no
provision for allowing such substitution. The order in
that regard was passed on 18.01.2014. The petitioner
No.1 did not challenge this order immediately. She
waited for about three years and in the year 2017, she
challenged the order by filing an original application
before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur.
This application was rejected by the Tribunal by its
impugned order, which has been challenged in the
present case.
4. We are of the view that there has been delay
and also latches on the part of the petitioners, in
knocking at the doors of the Court for seeking redressal
of their grievance. A request of petitioner No.1 was
rejected on 18.01.2014 by the respondent No.4, but, the
petitioner No.1 chose not to challenge it till the year
6wp8042.2019.odt
2017. It must be noted that this a matter which involves
an issue of grant of appointment on compassionate
basis. In such cases, delay assumes great significance
and if such delay is seen to be on the part of the
applicant, it would further show that the applicant is not
in urgent need of any employment. The object of
compassionate appointment is to provide immediate
financial relief and support to the family which has lost
its bread winner and to enable such family to lead an
honorable life. But, when it is seen that the family is not
in need of any such support, compassionate
appointment, which is an exception to the general rule
of making of public appointment by following due
process of law, cannot be given. This is what is seen by
the delay on the part of the petitioner No.1.
5. Therefore, in our view, this petition is not
maintainable and it stands dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
nd.thawre
