Bombay High Court
Pritam S/O Late Narad Wasnik vs The Chief Executive Officer, ... on 20 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
WP 5473-2021 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5473 OF 2021
Pritam s/o Late Narad Wasnik,
aged about 31 years, Occ. Shikshan Sevak,
Zilla Parishad School and Junior College, Asgaon,
Tq. Paoni, District - Bhandara.
PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
2. The Headmaster, Zilla Parishad High School,
Asgaon, Panchayat Samiti, Paoni,
Tq. Paoni, District - Bhandara.
RESPONDENTS
Shri P.R. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Khobragade, Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : 20/4/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned
Counsel for the parties.
2] The petitioner came to be appointed on compassionate
ground as Shikshan Sevak on 10/8/2021. In his order of appointment,
there were various terms and conditions and in condition No. 15, it was
stated that if in future, the Zilla Parishad found that the widow of the
deceased, son/ daughter or sister/ brother is in employment with the
State Government or Semi-Government Employer, the appointment
would be cancelled. On 11/10/2021, the Chief Executive Officer issued a
show cause notice to the petitioner stating therein that his younger
brother Pawan was serving in the Police Department and therefore as per
WP 5473-2021 2 Judgment
Clause (15) of the appointment order, his services were liable to be
terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice
on 21/10/2021 specifically stating that though his brother was employed
with the Police Department, he had not provided any financial assistance
to the family. On 17/11/2021, the Chief Executive Officer proceeded to
terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that there was
violation of Clause (15) of the appointment order. Being aggrieved, the
said order is challenged in this Writ Petition.
3] The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of
the Government Resolution dated 21/9/2017 and especially Clause 5(e)
thereof, it was necessary for the Zilla Parishad to have first verified
whether the employment of the petitioner's brother could be a reason to
deprive compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The financial
position of the family was required to be taken into consideration in that
regard. Such enquiry was conducted on 8/9/2021 and as per that report,
it was noted that though the petitioner's younger brother was employed
with the Police Department, he was not rendering any financial assistance
to the widow - petitioner's mother. Despite this material, the impugned
order of termination came to be issued. It is thus submitted that even
under Clause (15) of the appointment order, it was necessary for the Zilla
Parishad to have considered the effect of the Government Resolution
dated 21/9/2017.
4] The learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the
aforesaid submissions and relied upon the reply on record. He submitted
that the appointment of the petitioner was conditional and since there
was no dispute that the petitioner's younger brother was employed, his
services came to be terminated as per Clause (15) of the appointment
order. Hence, no interference with the impugned order was called for.
WP 5473-2021 3 Judgment
5] Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record, we find that after the appointment of
the petitioner on compassionate basis, the Zilla Parishad conducted an
enquiry and the Extension Officer on 8/9/2021 forwarded a report to the
Block Development Officer. In that report, it has been clearly stated that
though the petitioner's brother was employed with the Police Department,
the family was not getting any financial assistance as per the statement of
the petitioner's mother. Despite this report being available, the show
cause notice dated 11/10/2021 came to be issued. In the reply submitted
by the petitioner, this position was re-iterated that the family was not
getting any financial assistance. It is noted that the petitioner was
engaged at the Zilla Parishad, Bhandara while his brother is serving in the
Police Department at Nagpur. Clause 5(e) of the Government Resolution
dated 21/9/2017 clearly requires examination of the financial position of
the family in this regard. When the Extension Officer in the enquiry found
that the petitioner's brother was not supporting the family, it was
necessary for the Chief Executive Officer to have considered the same and
in light of Clause 5(e) of the said Government Resolution, no further
action was warranted. Even for Clause (15) of the appointment order to
operate, this aspect was material.
6] In view of aforesaid, we find that the Zilla Parishad was not
justified in terminating the services of the petitioner ignoring the report
dated 8/9/2021 as well as the Government Resolution dated 21/9/2017.
7] Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 17/11/2021
is set aside. The Zilla Parishad shall reinstate the petitioner on the post of
Shikshan Sevak within a period of three weeks from today. Though the
petitioner will not be entitled to receive any backwages, his date of
appointment shall be treated as 10/8/2021 and he would be entitled for
continuity for all consequential benefits.
WP 5473-2021 4 Judgment
8] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
SUMIT
