Ku. Mohana Devidasrao Ingole vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9665 Bom

19-WP-6312-19                                                        1/4


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 6312 OF 2019


Mohana Devidasrao Ingole,
Amravati                                     ... Petitioner

-vs-

The State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Secretary, Dept. of General
Administration, Mantralaya,
Mumbai and anr.                              ... Respondents


Shri R. D. Karode, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms Tajwar Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATE : September 22, 2022

P.C.

Heard.

The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate basis.

Her mother was serving as Assistant Teacher with Zilla Parishad,

Amravati and she died in harness on 16/06/2010. An application for

appointment on compassionate basis was made on 03/07/2010 by the

petitioner. The name of the petitioner was taken on the waiting list by

the Zilla Parishad and while considering her claim for such appointment,

the Chief Executive Officer passed an order on 28/02/2019 rejecting the

request of the petitioner on the ground that by virtue of the Government

Resolution dated 26/10/1994 and Clause-7(B) thereof, the financial 19-WP-6312-19 2/4

condition of the family was of such nature that the petitioner was not

entitled for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner

has challenged the said order.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sister

of the petitioner is suffering from medical ailment and considering the

certificate issued by the Medical Board on 15/07/2013, it was necessary

to provide appointment on compassionate basis to the petitioner

irrespective of the financial condition of the family. According to him

the mere fact that the petitioner's father was receiving pension would

not dis-entitle consideration of the petitioner's claim. In support of the

submission that the amount received towards pension was not liable to

be taken into consideration, the learned counsel has placed reliance on

the decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition (MD)

No.10650/2014 (M. Selvarajan vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and

anr.) decided on 18/09/2018. It is therefore submitted that the

impugned order was liable to be set aside and the petitioner was entitled

to be appointed on compassionate basis.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 by relying upon

affidavit in reply opposed the writ petition. He submitted that both the

parents of the petitioner were in employment with Zilla Parishad, 19-WP-6312-19 3/4

Amravati. After the death of the petitioner's mother, the family was

receiving amount of family pension of Rs.24,400/- per month. Similarly,

the petitioner's father retired on 31/05/2011 and he too was receiving

pension of Rs.24,000/- per month. The family was receiving Rs.48,400/-

per month and the petitioner was living with the family. Reliance placed

on the Government Resolution dated 26/10/1994 was justified and there

was no reason to interfere with the said order.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the documents on record, we do not find any reason to interfere

with the decision taken by the Chief Executive Officer denying

appointment on compassionate basis to the petitioner. It is undisputed

that the family is receiving Rs.48,400/- per month on account of family

pension of the deceased mother and in view of the retirement of the

petitioner's father. Consideration of this financial position is in the light

of Government Resolution dated 26/10/1994 and Clause-7(B) thereof.

The Full Bench of this Court in its judgment in Nilima Raju Khapekar vs.

Executive Director, Bank of Baroda, Baroda and ors. 2022 (3) Mh.L.J.

441 has held that if in the scheme for appointment on compassionate

basis, consideration of financial condition of the family has been

prescribed, the same is a material factor which cannot be ignored.

Another relevant aspect is that the death of the mother of the petitioner 19-WP-6312-19 4/4

occurred in the year 2010 and the petitioner's father was in service at the

relevant point of time. It is not the case that the family was in financial

distress on account of the death of an earning member in the family. The

decision relied upon is clearly distinguishable in view of the judgment of

the Full Bench referred to above. Period of more than ten years has now

elapsed and we do not find any justifiable reason to hold the order

rejecting grant of compassionate appointment warrants interference.

The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to

costs.

(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

Asmita

Digitally signed byASMITA ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR Signing Date:23.09.2022 17:25:55