Bombay High Court
Ravindra Sahebrao Tarange And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1 wp 3988.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3988 OF 2021
Ravindra Sahebrao Tarange
and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Yuvraj R. Barhate, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri K. N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4.
Shri Sushant V. Dixit, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 12.09.2022.
FINAL ORDER (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :-
. By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the
communications dated 03.10.2016 and 24.11.2016, by which their
request for substitution of name of the petitioner No. 2 with that
of petitioner No. 1 has been rejected on the ground that there is
no provision for substitution of name for compassionate
appointment. The decision of this Court in the case of
Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others in Writ Petition No. 6267 of 2018 decided on 11
March 2020 is relied upon to contend that this Court has set
aside restriction imposed by the Government Resolution dated
20.05.2015 on substitution of name of legal representatives for
consideration for compassionate appointment.
2 wp 3988.21
2. In the present case, initially name of the petitioner No. 2
was deleted from the waiting list upon attaining age of 40 years
on 03.10.2010. That decision was challenged in Writ Petition No.
9460 of 2014 and on account of raising the age bar from 40 years
to 45 years, the name of the petitioner No. 2 was directed to be
continued in the waiting list. By communication dated
24.08.2015, the name of the petitioner No. 2 was re-included in
the wait list with a rider that upon attaining age of 45 years on
03.10.2015, her name would again be deleted. About two months
before attaining age of 45 years, the petitioner No. 2 applied for
substitution of her name with that of her son i. e. the petitioner
No. 1. By the impugned communication their request is turned
down.
3. We must note at the outset that the request of the
petitioners for substitution of name has been rejected by
communications dated 03.10.2016 and 24.11.2016 and the
present petition is filed after inordinate delay of five long years
on 11.02.2021. We find that in respect of grievance of grant of
compassionate appointment, this delay of five years in filing the
petition is clearly fatal. In the light of this peculiar fact, we do
not wish to enter into other controversy and the permissibility of
substitution of name in the waiting list.
4. Mr. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Central Coalfields Limited Vs. Parden Oraon reported
3 wp 3988.21
in AIR Online 2021 SC 190, in which it is held in para No. 8 as
under :
8. The whole object of granting compassionate
appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden
crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner.
The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle
his family to such source of livelihood. The authority
concerned has to examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that
but for the provision of employment, the family will not be
able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible
member of the family 1. It was further asseverated in the
said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the
consideration of such employment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was
further held that the object of compassionate appointment
is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it
faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner,
compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered
after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
5. Mr. Dixit has also relied upon the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Gouri
Devi reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 1048, in which it is held as
under :
5.2 As held by this Court in the case of Punjab State
Power Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019)
6 SCC 774 delay in pursuing claim/approaching court would
militate against claim for compassionate appointment as
very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family
would stand extinguished. Before this Court, there was a
delay of 07 years in approaching the Court and this Court
observed and held that on the ground of delay itself, the
heir/dependent of the deceased employee shall not be
entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground.
4 wp 3988.21
5.3 In the case of State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed
Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766, this Court had occasion to consider
the delay and laches in case of appointment on
compassionate ground. By dismissing the claim for
appointment on compassionate ground, which was made
after a period of four and a half years of death of the
deceased employee, it was held that appointment on
compassionate ground is an exception to general rule that
appointment to public office should be made on the basis of
competitive merits. It is further observed that once it is
proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the
family survived and substantial period is over, there is no
need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the
cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate
of Article 14 of the Constitution.
6. Thus, it is trite that in a case relating to compassionate
appointment, delay in approaching the Court is extremely fatal.
In the present case, despite turning down request for
substitution of name in the year 2016, the petitioners waited for
five long years before filing the petition. Apart from this, the
death has occurred on 23.08.2005 and by now a period of
seventeen long years has lapsed. We, therefore, do not find this
is to be a fit case to be entertained. The petition suffers from
delay and laches. The same is dismissed without any orders as
to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
bsb/Sept. 22
