Bombay High Court
Vaishali Wd/O Chandu Zode (Maiden ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 10 November, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1 17-W.P.No.6343.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6343 OF 2022
Vaishali Wd/o Chandu Zode (maiden name Gita d/o Zibalrao Bhiogade)
..VS..
State o
f Maharashtra and another
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kamal Gour, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
No.1.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATED : 10.11.2022
Heard Mr. Gour, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondent No.1.
2. The submission is that, the petitioner had made an
application for grant of compassionate appointment
dated 06.05.2014 and that was the time when the
petitioner not having crossed the upper age limit
was eligible for being given compassionate appointment.
But, the application of the petitioner was kept pending
for a long period of time and recently i.e. on 09.02.2021
the petitioner was informed that she had crossed the
upper age limit of 45 years and, therefore, she was
ineligible for being considered for compassionate
appointment, which is something illegal.
3. It is also submitted that if the application of the
petitioner was not decided for a period of about seven
years and during this period of time, the petitioner
crossed the upper age limit, the petitioner cannot be
punished for the same. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that it was the fault of the employer in
not considering and granting the application of the
petitioner well within time and if the employer has not
done so, the employer now cannot say that the petitioner
is not eligible for getting any compassionate
appointment.
4. As a matter of principle, we cannot go against the
proposition that for the fault of others, a widow like the
petitioner cannot be made to suffer. But, it has to be
borne in mind that the law governing the field of
compassionate appointment works on different principle
and for different purpose and object. The principle is
that the compassionate appointment is an exception to
the general principle of recruitment in public office by
open invitation and fair competition and, therefore, such
exception must be made only when a particular object
and given purpose is being achieved thereby. The object
or purpose of compassionate appointment is to enable a
widow or family member of the bereaved family to tide
over the financial crisis visiting it after sudden and
unfortunate demise of the sole bread winner of the
family. The financial need of the family remains alive
only for a certain period of time and as the time passes
over, the need starts diminishing. So, ultimately, the
issue of compassionate appointment has to be decided
from the perspective of the kind of help and nature of
succor that it is going to bring to the family. This is the
consistent view taken by the Supreme Court in its several
judgments, which have been considered in detail by this
Court in the case of Smt. Rekha wd/o Gjanan
Nandanwar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others, Writ Petition No. 5078 of 2018, decided on
11.10.2022.
5. Applying the above referred law to the present
case, we find that the financial need of the family of the
petitioner has been extinguished by passage of long
period of time which is more than eight years after the
death of husband of the petitioner. The husband of the
petitioner died in harness on 22.08.2013 and the family
of the petitioner has managed to survive for all these
eight years and more. Then, the petitioner had learnt
about rejection of her application for compassionate
appointment on 09.02.2021 and that she had also sent a
notice through her Advocate Mr. M.K. Deshmmukh, to
the respondents calling upon respondents to reconsider
their decision. The request made in the notice issued by
the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on
01.06.2021. After 01.06.2021, the petitioner did not
take any steps for questioning the impugned decision
and the petitioner filed this petition almost after more
than one year from the rejection of her claim of
compassionate appointment. This fact also shows that
the petitioner is not in any immediate need for
compassionate appointment.
6. In the result, we find that this petition is devoid of
any merit and it is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kirtak
Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK
BHIMRAO JANARDHAN
Signing Date:11.11.2022
19:06
