Bombay High Court
Subodh S/O Jeewan Khobragade vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 30 August, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Urmila Sachin Phalke
2023:BHC-NAG:12918-DB
955. WP 663 of 2022.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.663/2022
Subodh s/o Jeewan Khobragade
...Versus...
State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai and others
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. I.N.Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Ms Payal Kaware, Advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for respondent nos.3 & 4
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATE : 30/08/2023
1. Heard Mr. I.N. Choudhari, learned counsel for the
petitioner. The petition questions the denial of appointment of
the petitioner in Class-III or Class-IV category with the
respondent no.4/School on compassionate appointment. It is
contended that in terms of the policy dated 21/09/2017, the
petitioner is entitled to appointment. It is also contended that
the petitioner, at the time of demise of his father, was minor
and when became major, he was required to be appointed on
compassionate basis.
2. Mr. N.S. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Advocate Ms Payal Kaware,
955. WP 663 of 2022.odt
holding for Mr. S.S. Dhengale, learned counsel for the
respondent nos.3 and 4 oppose this contention and submit that
the claim is hopelessly time barred.
3. It cannot be disputed that the purpose of
compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to
the family in time of need [See : Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs.
State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 138 and Nilima
Raju Khapekar Vs. The Executive Director, Bank of Baroda and
others 2022 (3) Mh.L.J. 441].
4. That being the intent of the policy for providing
compassionate appointment, any delay would clearly defeat
the policy. In the instant matter, the father of the petitioner
passed away on 16/09/2004. It is also not in dispute that the
gratuity and pension on account of his demise are being
received by his widow, who had applied for compassionate
appointment on 04/12/2004. Since there was no vacancy in
Class-III or Class-IV, no appointment is forthcoming. The
petitioner, whose date of birth is claimed to be 12/11/1996,
upon his attaining majority, in 2019 an application for
substituting his name in place of the widow was made. The
petitioner himself has again applied for the same purpose in
2021.
5. In Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and
others Vs. Anusree K.B. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held in para 9.1 and 9.2 as under :
955. WP 663 of 2022.odt
"9.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the
observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for
which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided,
the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on
compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in
the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the
deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the
appointment on compassionate ground. If such an
appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24
years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for
which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.
9.2 Under the circumstances, both, the learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a
serious error in directing the appellants to reconsider the case
of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable."
6. The same position is reiterated in The State of West
Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others Etc. Etc. 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 175 in para 7.5 in the following words :
"7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in
the first instance, regarding whether applications for
compassionate appointment could be considered after a
delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case
where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of
the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the
authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is
diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the
family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better,
since the time of the death of the government employee. In
such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are
to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of
delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain
955. WP 663 of 2022.odt
themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment
from some other source. Granting compassionate
appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim
Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate
appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based
on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution.
Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and
the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship
faced by the dependents of the deceased government
employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for
compassionate appointment may not be entertained after
lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the
government employee."
7. It is, thus, apparent that any delay either in making of
the application or in the appointment on compassionate basis
would defeat the very purpose and object of the policy and
take away the plea of necessity and immediate succor, for the
reason that since for that duration as the family of the
deceased was able to sustain themselves, granting of
compassionate appointment after several years/decade would
foster a backdoor entry and defeat the object of providing
public employment on merits.
8. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to
entertain the present writ petition. The same is, therefore,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/08/2023 17:23:18
