Bombay High Court
Akshaykumar Balaji Kesgire vs The State Of Mahrashtra And Others on 28 July, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep Vishnupant Marne
921 WP 11821 OF
2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
921 WRIT PETITION NO.11821 OF 2019
AKSHAYKUMAR BALAJI KESGIRE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kadam Prasad B.
AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Mrs. M. A. Deshpande
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. V.N. Bhavthankar
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 28.07.2022.
ORAL ORDER : (PER : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
We have heard both the sides.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the
communication dated 16.05.2019 and seeks appointment on compassionate
ground.
3. The father of the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in
Zillha Parishad Primary School, Nandgaon Tq. Jintur Dist. Parbhani. He
expired on 28.11.2007 while in service. The mother of the petitioner made
an application for grant of compassionate appointment to the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. By communications dated 17.10.2012 and 14.12.2012 the
respondent No. 2 called upon the petitioner's mother to submit necessary
documents for further processing compassionate appointment. However, the
petitioner's mother failed to comply with the said requisition. On account of
failure of mother of the petitioner to comply with the requisition, it appears
that though the respondent No. 2 was willing to consider the case of the
mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the same could not
be processed further.
921 WP 11821 OF
2019.odt
4. On 20.12.2010 the petitioner's mother submitted an application
stating that she was incapable of serving and therefore in her place the
name of the petitioner, who was minor at that time, be considered for
compassionate appointment after he attaining the age of majority.
5. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner made an application
dated 18.01.2016 for compassionate appointment. The said application was
rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 16.05.2019
relying upon the government resolution dated 20.05.2015, which prohibited
change of name of applicant for compassionate appointment. The petitioner
approached this court by filing Writ Petition No. 8285/2018 and when it
came up for hearing on 23.07.2018, the petitioner made a statement that he
would prosecute the application with the authority and the writ petition was
accordingly disposed of. As a matter of fact, the case of the petitioner was
already rejected by a well reasoned order dated 13.10.2016 and there was
no question of the petitioner prosecuting his case further with the
authorities. Nonetheless, the petitioner made a statement before this Court
on 23.07.2018 and got the petition disposed of. Be that as it may, it appears
that a fresh application dated 02.04.2019 was made by the petitioner to the
respondent No. 2, which came to be rejected by letter dated 16.05.2019
referring to the earlier rejection letter dated 13.10.2016 and it was once
again communicated that the case of the petitioner could not be considered
for compassionate ground in view of the government resolution dated
20.05.2015.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Kadam appearing for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in Dnyaneshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra;
(2020) 5 Mh.L.J. 381 to contend that the judgment holds that the
restriction imposed by the government resolution dated 20.05.2015 for
replacement of name of petitioner for compassionate appointment is
unjustified and that the same was directed to be deleted. Relying on the
921 WP 11821 OF
2019.odt
said decision, the petitioner is assailing the impugned communications.
7. We have carefully gone through the said judgment in the case of
Dnyaneshwar (supra). In our opinion, the facts of the present case are
entirely different than the one involved in the case of Dnyaneshwar. In the
present case, the petitioner's mother was being offered compassionate
appointment by respondent No. 2 and she voluntarily decided not to take up
the same and instead filed an application dated 20.12.2012 stating that she
was not in a position to take up the appointment. No specific reason was
assigned in the said letter dated 20.12.2012.
8. The objective of grant of compassionate appointment is to enable the
family to tide over the situation on account of sudden loss of income. In the
present case the petitioner's father had expired on 28.11.2007 and by the
time the case of the mother was being considered for grant of compassionate
appointment, a period of five years had already passed. If indeed, the family
was in need of immediate financial assistance in the form of compassionate
appointment, the mother would have acted upon the communications issued
by the respondent No. 2 and cooperated for consideration of her case for
grant of compassionate appointment. Instead of doing so, the mother
expressed inability to take up the job without assigning any particular
reason. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the judgment in
the case of Dnyaneshwar (supra) is clearly distinguishable.
9. In the above backdrop no case is made out by the petitioner for
interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected, without any
order as to costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
