Bombay High Court
Jitendra Somnath Mandlik vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 February, 2022
Bench: A.S. Gadkari, S. G. Mehare
WP-11840-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11840 OF 2019
Jitendra s/o Somnath Mandlik,
Age-22 years, Occu. Service as a Peon,
R/o. Raitewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
The School Education and Sports Department,
Mumbai.
2. Sharda Education Sanstha,
Through its
The President/Secretary,
Akole Naka, Sangamner,
Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. The Principal,
Matoshree Rukhminibai Damodhar Malpani,
Secondary School,
Through its Principal.
4. The Educational Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents
...
Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K.N. Lokhande, AGP for the Respondent/State.
...
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI &
S.G. MEHARE, J.J.
RESERVED ON : 08th FEBRUARY, 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th FEBRUARY, 2022
1/5
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2022 10:36:31 :::
WP-11840-2019.odt
JUDGMENT (PER S.G. MEHARE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties
appeared in the petition, heard finally.
2. Despite the service of notice on respondents nos.2 to 4, they did
not prefer to appear. Hence, the Court proceeded ex-parte against
them.
3. Petitioner's father served as a peon with respondents nos.2 and
3. His father died in harness on 30.11.2013. Immediately after his
father's death, he applied for a compassionate appointment in place of
his father to respondents no.2 and 3. Respondents no.2 and 3
appointed him as a peon for the period from 01.04.2019 to
31.03.2022. Thereafter respondents nos.2 and 3 forwarded his
proposal for approval to the post of peon to respondent no.4 along
with necessary documents. Respondent no.4, vide his letter dated
28.06.2019, declined to approve the appointment for the reasons
that, as per Government Resolution dated 12.02.2015, the concerned
department has not prepared a roster for the posts of non-teaching
staff. The petitioner has impugned the said order dated 28.06.2019,
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the
reasons for declining the claim of the petitioner to be appointed on
the compassionate ground are contrary to the law settled by this High
Court by its various judgments. The revised staffing roster is not a
WP-11840-2019.odt
precondition for compassionate appointment. To bolster his
argument, he relied on the case of Bhushan s/o Sudamrao Ekonkar,
Tah. Arvi, Dist. Wardha Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary,
School Education Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors, (Writ Petition
No.2678 of 2020 decided by the Division Bench at Nagpur dated
16.12.2021), Renuka D/o Munjaji Pondhe and Others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, School Education and Sports Department and Others,
(Writ Petition No.8115 of 2018 decided by the Division Bench at
Aurangabad dated 22.07.2021). He also relied on the pronouncement
delivered by Principal Seat at Bombay in Writ Petition No.589 of
2021, Shri Sagar Yashwant Mene Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Ors dated 11.08.2021.
5. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the State did not dispute the
legal position that the law stands settled by the various
pronouncements on the issue involved in this petition.
6. The above three pronouncements of the High Court of Principal
Seat at Bombay, Nagpur Bench and Aurangabad Bench supports the
petitioners. The above judicial pronouncements made the law clear
that the absence of the revised staffing roster is not the ground to
refuse the appointment on compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs State of Haryana
and others (1994) 4 S.C.C. 138 and Local Administration Department
and another Vs, M Selvanayagam Alia Kumaravelu, (2011) 13 S.C.C.
WP-11840-2019.odt
42 has held that, the appointment of compassionate ground is not
only a humane act but is aimed at facilitating immediate succour to
the family in distress, who has suddenly lost the sole bread earner and
is rendered to starvation. Any act on the part of the Government in
delaying compassionate appointments causing further distress to the
family is unconscionable. The sole object behind the scheme of
compassionate appointments is to extend immediate help to the
family of the deceased bread earner. It is an exceptional appointment
to the routine procedure of the appointments.
7. It is not the case that the petitioner delayed applying for the
compassionate appointment, and respondent no.4 did not find any
other flaws in the application of the petitioner. It is time and again
observed that the law on the compassionate appointments is settled
by the Courts long back still the concerned authorities repeatedly
declining the compassionate appointments on the same ground. We
find substance in the petition as the judgments relied upon by him
cover his case.
8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by
respondent no.4 dated 28.06.2019 is quashed and set aside.
9. Respondent no.4 shall forthwith grant the approval to the
appointment of the petitioner as a peon to the proposal placed by
respondents no. 2 and 3 within four weeks from the date of receipt of
this Order, in the absence of any other legal impediment other than
WP-11840-2019.odt
the reasons mentioned in the impugned order.
10. It is needless to state that the petitioner would be entitled for
the consequential benefits arising out of the approval granted to his
appointment.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
12. No order as to costs.
(S.G. MEHARE. J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
Mujaheed//
