Bombay High Court
Dheeraj S/O Prakash Raut vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 30 August, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Urmila Sachin Phalke
2023:BHC-NAG:12917-DB
906.wp.889.18.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.889 OF 2018
(Dheeraj s/o Prakash Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Addl. G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 30, 2023
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petition claims a declaration that the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of compassionate
appointment on the demise of his mother in harness on
20/08/2005. Much water has flown thereafter still the
plea of compassionate appointment according to the
learned Counsel for the petitioner survives and he is
entitled to be considered for such appointment.
3. The plea is opposed by Mr. Bhattad, learned
Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. Ukey,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
No.1.
4. The mother of the petitioner was employed as
Class-IV employee with respondent No.2 and passed away
on 20/08/2005.
5. The petitioner thereafter approached to the
learned Industrial Court, Nagpur by Complaint
No.338/2010, which came to be dismissed by judgment
dated 28/09/2016 on the ground of limitation. Though it
is contended that the learned Industrial Court did not
have jurisdiction to entertain such claim on account of
absence of relationship of employer and employee and the
petitioner be granted concession on that ground, such a
plea in our considered opinion is not available to the
petitioner. That apart the policy in this regard dated
26/10/1994 indicates vide Clause 7-B that before
considering a claim for compassionate appointment the
family income of the petitioner has to be taken into
consideration.
6. Mr. Bhattad, learned Counsel for respondent
No.2 has submitted that the brother of the petitioner, was
in employment with the Central Reserve Police Force as a
Cook. The father of the petitioner namely Prakash
Marotrao Raut was also earning Rs.2796/- per month and
at that point of time the other brother of the petitioner
was also in employment as per the inquiry report
conducted by respondent No.2.
7. As per the inquiry report (page 35 clause 10)
the father of the petitioner was also receiving the pension.
Considering all these aspects, by the communication dated
21/10/2008, the petitioner has been held disqualified for
compassionate appointment (page 14).
8. In that view of the matter, since the policy
indicates consideration of the income and it has been
found that the family of the petitioner at that point of time
was having substantial income, and therefore, was not
satisfying the requirement of the policy, in view of what
has been said by the learned Full Bench of this Court in
Nilima Raju Khapekar Vs. Executive Director, Bank of
Baroda and others, 2022(3) Mh.L.J. 441, in this regard
that it is the need for immediate succour, which is the
paramount factor to be considered, which considering the
fact position availing and the passage of nearly 17 years
from the date of demise of the employee, we do not see
any reason to accept the plea of the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment.
9. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE ,J.)
*Divya
Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/08/2023 17:19:35
