Bombay High Court
Shri. Vaibhav Namdev Ghatge vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 8 June, 2022
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
44-WP.208.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2022
Shri. Vaibhav Namdev Ghatge } Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra }
and Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Anand S. Patil for the petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for State.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE: JUNE 8, 2022
P.C.:
1. The petitioner's father died in harness on 25th August
2000. On 25th September 2000, the petitioner's mother
applied for compassionate appointment. According to the
petitioner, no action was taken on such application. He,
therefore, applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005
for information, whereupon the respondents confirmed, on
25th October 2017, that in fact an application had been made
by his mother and that the same had been sent to the
superior officers. In the meanwhile, the petitioner (born on
13th June 1992) had made an application for an appointment
on compassionate ground on 8th January 2016; i.e. 6 (six)
years and 5 (five) months after attaining majority. Such
application was rejected by an order dated 5st February 2016,
which was made the subject matter of challenge in an original
J.V.Salunke,PS
44-WP.208.2022
application (Original Application No. 795 of 2018) under
section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter
"the Tribunal", for short). By its judgment and order dated
12th April 2019, the Tribunal has dismissed the original
application, which has given rise to this writ petition.
2. We have heard Mr. Patil, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Samant, learned AGP for State.
3. Paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment reads as
follows:-
"8. The following facts are uncontroverted: -
(a) Deceased employee died on 25.08.2000.
(b) His widow filed an application for
appointment on compassionate ground
on 25.09.2000.
(c) Mother's application was rejected by
order dated 29.03.2011 which was
admittedly served upon the mother of the
Applicant.
(d) Applicant's birth date is 13.06.1992 and
he attained majority on 13.06.2010.
(e) Applicant had made applications for
appointment on compassionate ground
for the first time on 08.01.2016 and
27.06.2016.
(f) Respondents by order dated 5th February,
2016 rejected the claim of the Applicant
being made after lapse of period of 15
years from the date of death of the
deceased."
4. Although the Tribunal has recorded in paragraph 8(c)
that rejection of the petitioner's mother's application by an
order dated 29th March 2011 is an uncontroverted factor and
that such order was admittedly served upon the petitioner's
J.V.Salunke,PS
44-WP.208.2022
mother, we have failed to comprehend as to how the Tribunal
arrived at such a finding.
5. An affidavit in reply was filed by the respondents before
the Tribunal. It neither suggests that the application of the
petitioner's mother was rejected by the order dated 29th
March 2011, nor does it suggest that the said order was
served upon the petitioner's mother.
6. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that an
extraneous consideration influenced the mind of the Tribunal
which vitiates its order of dismissal of the original application
of the petitioner.
7. That apart, it appears from the impugned order of the
Tribunal that the petitioner was held disentitled to
appointment on compassionate ground in view of Government
Resolution dated 22nd August 2005. Whether the said
Government Resolution could be made applicable in case of
death of an employee in harness on 25th August 2000 is a
question which might require a fresh look by the Tribunal in
view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 4103 of 2022 (Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of
Orissa and Ors.) decided on 20th May 2022.
8. We are of the considered opinion that this is a fit and
proper case where the impugned order of the Tribunal ought
to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a
fresh decision in accordance with law.
9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12th April 2019
stands sets aside. This would result in revival of Original
Application No. 795 of 2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal
J.V.Salunke,PS
44-WP.208.2022
is requested to decide the original application afresh in the
light of the extant law as early as possible, preferably within 4
(four) months from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Since the impugned order disposed of Miscellaneous
Application No. 444 of 2018 too, being an application for
condonation of delay, we direct the Tribunal to consider such
application first and only upon the delay being condoned, it
shall look into the merits of the matter.
SALUNKE
JV
Digitally signed
by SALUNKE J V
Date: 2022.06.09
18:04:30 +0530
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
J.V.Salunke,PS
