Bombay High Court
Chaitali Wd/O Gopal Garade And Anr vs The State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary ... on 19 September, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
1 26.wp.5750.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5750 OF 2022
Chaitali Wd/o. Gopal Garade & Anr. -Vs.- The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr P. S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms K. S. Joshi AGP for the respondent No.1/State
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED : 19.09.2022
Heard Mr P. S. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms K. S. Joshi, learned AGP for respondent
No.1.
2] Judgment of Dnyaneshwar S/o. Ramkishan
Musane .v/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors, Writ
Petition No. 6267 of 2018, decided on 11.03.2020, has been
relied upon, which takes a view that prohibition imposed by
Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 that name of any
legal representative of deceased employee can not be
substituted by any another legal representative, seeking
appointment on compassionate ground, is arbitrary,
irrational and unreasonable. However, this judgment
interprets Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 and
therefore, it would have no application to the Government
Resolutions issued subsequently.
2 26.wp.5750.2022.odt
3] In the present case, name of the petitioner No.2
has been refused to be substituted in place of petitioner No.1
in the waiting list made for making appointments on
compassionate basis on the ground that there is no provision
made for such substitution in the subsequent Government
Resolution dated 21.09.2017. Compassionate appointment,
it is settled law, can be made only as per the policy and that
it confers no right or privilege upon the persons seeking such
an appointment. Its object is to enable the bereaved family,
which finds itself in financial crisis after sudden and
untimely demise of the sole bread winner of the family to
get over the financial crisis. Therefore, by their very nature,
such appointments are provided only as bringing immediate
succor to the bereaved family. That means, if considerable
period of time elapses since the demise of the bread earner,
the law presumes that the dire financial need of the family
has faded away gradually and as time passes by, it is
removed completely, unless shown otherwise. Besides, as
stated earlier, providing of compassionate appointment
being a matter of policy, this Court cannot grant any relief to
the petitioner, who is not there in the original policy.
4] In the present case, reliance has been placed upon
Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017, which does not
contain any provision for allowing applications made for
substituting the names of the persons already included in
the waiting list of compassionate appointments. If this is so,
it would not be permissible for this Court to interfere with
3 26.wp.5750.2022.odt
the policy, inasmuch as, such policy cannot be seen to be
arbitrary or illegal, rather it has to be upheld as consistent
with the object of compassionate appointment. After all
issue of compassionate appointment cannot be kept pending
for long period of time and in any case, it is not something
which comes to the legal heirs automatically by way of
succession to the post held by deceased's family member. It
must also be remembered that any compassionate
appointment stands as an exception to the rule of equality
and open competition incorporated under Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India and therefore, if any
compassionate appointment is to be made, special
circumstances to justify the same must exist. These special
circumstances are in the nature of financial difficulties faced
by the family and as stated earlier, passage of time lessens or
removes those difficulties, unless shown otherwise.
5] In the present case, the husband of the
petitioner No.1 died in the year 2017 and with the passage
of about 4-5 years of time, the dire financial need of the
family now has been considerably reduced, thereby
weakening the case of the petitioners. For all these reasons
this petition cannot be allowed.
6] Considering the settled legal position governing
the rule of compassionate appointment, we would urge the
State Government to think of stipulating validity period for
the waiting list that is prepared for making compassionate
4 26.wp.5750.2022.odt
appointments and the validity period may be of about 2-3
years. A provision can also be incorporated in the policy
that after expiry of 2-3 years of period from the date of the
application, the applicant whose name is included in the
waiting list shall not be eligible to be considered for
compassionate appointment and his/her name shall stand
removed immediately on expiry of such period.
The writ petition is therefore summarily dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(G. A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Namrata
Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:20.09.2022 19:06
