Bombay High Court
Ku. Tejal D/O Suraj Rachhore vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 22 September, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Sachin Phalke
WP 2653-2019 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2653 OF 2019
Ku. Tejal d/o Suraj Rachhore,
C/o Shri Ramesh Tularam Belekar,
Aged about 21 years, Occ. Student,
Ward No.2, In front of Zilla Parishad,
New Koradi, Tah. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur.
PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Revenue and Forest,
Mantralaya Mumbai - 32.
2. Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
through Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur - 01.
3. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Block Development Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Parshivani,
Tah. Ramtek, District Nagpur.
RESPONDENTS
Shri G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1/ State.
Shri S.N. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, JJ.
DATE : 22/9/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned
counsel for the parties.
WP 2653-2019 2 Judgment
2. The father of the petitioner was in service with the Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur on the post of 'Assistant Teacher'. He expired in harness
on 28/8/2007. It is the case of the petitioner that on 9/7/2014, an
application seeking appointment on compassionate basis was made to the
Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The petitioner was
informed by the communication dated 5/3/2018 that since she had made
an application seeking compassionate appointment on 9/2/2018 which
was beyond the prescribed period for making such application, it was not
liable to be considered. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the
said communication in the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the
petitioner's father expired, she was minor. Her date of birth is 30/3/1997
and she attained the age of majority on 29/3/2015. As per the
Government Resolution dated 21/9/2017 and especially Clause 10
thereof, an application seeking appointment on compassionate basis has
to be made within a period of one year of attaining the age of majority. If
such application is made belatedly but within a period of three years, the
delay can be considered by the Administrative Department and the same
can be condoned. Since the petitioner's application dated 9/2/2018 was
within three years of the petitioner attaining majority, this Clause was
required to be considered. Instead of rejecting the application, the Zilla
WP 2653-2019 3 Judgment
Parishad ought to have forwarded the same to the Rural Development
Department of the State of Maharashtra. It is thus prayed that an
appropriate relief be granted to the petitioner.
4. Shri S.N. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad
supported the impugned communication by relying upon the affidavit-in-
reply. It is stated that the initial application which is claimed to have been
made on 9/7/2014 was not found in the records of the Zilla Parishad.
Since the application dated 9/2/2018 was made after expiry of more than
ten years, the same was not considered. The learned Counsel however
does not dispute the applicability of the Government Resolution dated
21/9/2017 to the facts of the case.
5. On perusing the documents on record, it is clear that as per
the aforesaid Government Resolution, an application seeking appointment
on compassionate basis has to be made within a period of one year of the
claimant attaining the age of majority. In the present case, the petitioner
attained the age of majority on 29/3/2015. The application dated
9/2/2018 therefore is within three years of she attaining majority. In this
backdrop, the applicability of Clause 10 of the Government Resolution
dated 21/9/2017 is required to be considered inasmuch as under Sub-
Clause 3 of Clause 10 of the Government Resolution dated 21/9/2017,
period up to three years can be condoned for considering such claim. The
WP 2653-2019 4 Judgment
impugned communication however does not refer to the said Government
Resolution and hence in our view, it would be necessary to consider the
effect of the said Government Resolution. The rejection of the application
without considering the applicability of the said Government Resolution is
unjustified.
6. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed :
i. The communication dated 5/3/2018 issued by the Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur is set aside. The Chief Executive
Officer shall forward the petitioner's application dated 9/2/2018 along
with his note to the Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
in the light of Clause 10 of the Government Resolution dated 21/9/2017.
ii. The aforesaid shall be done within a period of four weeks
from receiving copy of this judgment. Within a further period of eight
weeks, the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai shall take a necessary decision in the light of Clause 10 of the
Government Resolution dated 21/9/2017 and communicate such decision
to the petitioner as well as to the Zilla Parishad. The respective Counsel
for the respondents to communicate this judgment to their clients.
WP 2653-2019 5 Judgment
iii. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
(URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
SUMIT
Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN
AGRAWAL
Signing Date:22.09.2022 18:52
