Bombay High Court
Madavrao Hanmantrao Patil Takalikar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 22 December, 2023
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2023:BHC-AUG:27334
912-WP-15727-2023-judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 15722 OF 2023
Shubham s/o Sanjay More
Age: 24 yrs., Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Aaditya Nagar, Patnadevi Road,
Chalisgaon, Tal. Chalisgaon,
Dist.: Jalgaon ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department and
Panchayat Raj Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, jalgaon
3. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Chalisgaon,
Dist.: Jalgaon ... Respondents
....
Mr. D. D. Pande, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent No.1
Mr. V. V. Gujar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
....
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 03.01.2024
1 of 5
(( 2 )) 912-WP-15727-2023-judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per - Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.):-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate basis
in place of his father, who was a Village Development Officer at
Panchayat Samiti, Chalisgaon and passed away on 20.09.2017. The
legal impediment is that the deceased has three children and the third
child is born on 10.09.2002, after the cut-off date 31.12.2001
prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 28.03.2001. The
Petitioner has an elder brother and a younger sister. The mother of
the Petitioner has received Rs.5,52,720/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Two
Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty), towards the service benefits on
account of her husband's demise. She is receiving Rs.9870/- per
month as pension. The father of the Petitioner has three children,
namely Ravindra Sanjay More, Shubham Sanjay More (Petitioner)
and Anushka Sanjay More.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner places reliance
upon a notification dated 28.03.2005 issued by the Deputy Secretary,
2 of 5
(( 3 )) 912-WP-15727-2023-judgment
State of Maharashtra, to support the contention that the said
notification requires a declaration of small family as one of the
essential qualifications for recruitment on posts in group A, B, C and
D in the Government Department. It prescribes the cut-off date and
children more than two, born after this date i.e. 28.03.2005, would
alone disqualify the Petitioner. However, as the third child of the
deceased born on 10.09.2002, the bar on having more than two
children prior to the date of the notification, would not be an
impediment for the Petitioner to seek compassionate appointment.
4. We have considered the notification threadbare and it
pertains only to recruitment in the Government Department for posts
falling in Groups A to D. It does not apply to cases seeking
compassionate appointment.
5. The State of Maharashtra issued a Government
Resolution (G.R.) dated 28.03.2001, specifically pertaining to
appointment on compassionate basis. Clause-E categorically lays
down that the third child born after 31.12.2001 would dis-entitle the
legal representative from seeking compassionate appointment. It
does not call for any debate that this provision was known to the
3 of 5
(( 4 )) 912-WP-15727-2023-judgment
deceased father of the Petitioner who has passed away on
20.09.2017. The third child is born on 10.09.2002. The notification
dated 28.03.2005, is neither in conflict with the G.R. dated
28.03.2001, nor can it overbear the G.R. It is a notification which
specifically pertains to new recruitments on posts falling in Groups A
to D in the Government service and does not apply to the process of
making appointments on compassionate basis.
6. The Full Bench of this Court in Sunita Dinesh Gaikwad
and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 (5) Mh.L.J.
40, lays down the law that the view taken by this Court in Kashabai
Sheshrao Wagh Vs. Zilla Parishad, Nashik and others - 2019 Mh.L.J.
OnLine 220, does not lay down the law that clause E of the G.R.
dated 28.03.2001 is set aside or is arbitrary. The Full Bench has
concluded that the said order passed in Kashabai is restricted only to
the facts of that case and the view taken by this Court in
Bhagyashree Pradip Chopade Vs. MIDC and others, 2022 Mh.L.J.
OnLine 89, is the correct view which upholds Clause E of the said
G.R.
4 of 5
(( 5 )) 912-WP-15727-2023-judgment
7. So also, a coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an
order on 28.09.2022 in Writ Petition No.82 of 2017 (Pushpabai
Vitthal Warkad Vs. the State of Maharashtra and another) concluding
that the G.R. dated 22.08.2005 only deals with certain provisions
effected vide the said resolution and in no manner whatsoever does it
delete Clause E of the G.R. dated 28.03.2001.
8. In view of the above, we conclude that the Petitioner is
not entitled to compassionate appointment on account of the third
child having been born after the cut-off date.
9. This Petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]
SMS
5 of 5
