Shri. Akshay S/O Sureshrao ... vs Honble High Court, Appellate ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1145 Bom

                               1/7                    wp.7752.19-J.odt


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                       WRIT PETITION NO.7752/2019

     Shri Akshay S/o. Sureshrao Chambhare,
     Aged about 29 yrs., Occ. Nil,
     R/o. Garoba Maidan, Kapse Chowk,
     Galli No.1, Nagpur.                            PETITIONER

             VERSUS
1.   Hon'ble High Court, Appellate Side,
     Fort, Mumbai, through its Registrar.

2.   The Principal District & Sessions Judge,
     Bhandara (M.S.).                               RESPONDENTS

Mr. P. C. Marpakwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. M. Kukday, Advocate, for Respondents.

                      CORAM       :
                             A. S. CHANDURKAR AND
                             MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,JJ.

RESERVED ON : 31.01.2023.

PRONOUNCED ON : 03.02.2023.

JUDGMENT : [PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.]

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

Counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner is praying to quash and set aside the

communications dated 04.03.2015 and 11.06.2019 issued by the Registrar,

High Court Appellate Side, Mumbai and seeking direction against the 2/7 wp.7752.19-J.odt

respondents that the petitioner be given appointment on compassionate

ground.

4. The father of the petitioner Suresh Vinayakrao Chambhare

was in service with respondent No.2 on the post of Superintendent at

District Court, Bhandara. The father of the petitioner met with road

accident while on duty and died on 03.01.2013. Due to death of sole

bread earner of the family, the family had been greatly affected. Therefore,

the petitioner applied to the respondent No.2 for consideration and

appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father as per the

service Rules applicable. The petitioner filed such application with the

consent and no-objection certificate from his mother and younger brother

for appointment on compassionate ground. However, the said application

was rejected by the Registrar by the communication dated 04/07.03.2015.

The petitioner then made another application for re-consideration on

11.06.2019 on the ground that the application for re-consideration was

undated. As no response was received, therefore, the petitioner has filed

this writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the

father of the petitioner died in harness on 03.01.2013. He was working on

the post of Superintendent with the office of respondent No.2. Due to the

accidental death, the petitioner and the entire family has suffered a great 3/7 wp.7752.19-J.odt

shock as sole bread earner has been lost. The family was undergoing

financial crisis and therefore, had filed the application for compassionate

appointment. The ground put-forth for rejection of the claim of the

petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground Clause 7(c) of the

Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on

Compassionate Ground, 2007. The said ground is not applicable to the

petitioner as it states total monthly income of such family is less than the

total emoluments of Group - C employee of the lowest rank. The scale of

Group - C employee is Rs.5200-20200. This criteria cannot be a ground

for rejection of claim of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate

ground. There could not be any income to the family as the sole bread

earner died while on duty and the widow of the deceased was a

housewife. There being no source of income to the family, therefore, the

family pension can not be counted as income of family as per Clause 7(c)

of the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on

Compassionate Ground, 2007.

6. He has further submitted that the said guidelines had been

misapplied by the respondents without due and proper consideration of

the appointment on compassionate ground in respect of petitioner. He has

further stated that the family deserves immediate assistance for relief of

financial destitution. The family pension paid to the widow, mother of the 4/7 wp.7752.19-J.odt

petitioner was just insufficient for maintenance of the family and thus the

entire family was dependent on the compassionate appointment of the

petitioner for support of family. Hence, the application submitted by the

petitioner deserved due and proper consideration to meet ends of justice.

Hence, prayed to grant the relief of appointing him on compassionate

ground.

7. The respondent No.2 has filed the reply and denied to appoint

the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his father. The

application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted to

the respondent No.2, was at the belated stage. He has relied on the

judgment of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Gauri Davi (Civil Appeal

No.6910/2021). On the basis of recommendation to the effect that it does

not fulfill the criteria in view of Clause No.7(c) of the Bombay High Court

Revised Guidelines, 2007, the said fact of rejection was informed by the

respondent no.2 to the petitioner vide communication dated 20.05.2015.

As per the Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground,

7. Eligibility : The scheme shall apply only if :- (a) The family deserves

immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and (c) The

total monthly income of such family is less than the total emoluments of

Group-C employee of the lowest rank. As per office order dated

21.02.2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhandara, 5/7 wp.7752.19-J.odt

provisional family pension was sanctioned to the mother of the petitioner.

The pension payable was Rs.9,685/- including D.A. and it was for a period

from 04.01.2013 to 03.07.2013 i.e. for 6 months. The provisional pension

was extended for further period of 6 months from 04.07.2013 to

03.01.2014. The mother of the petitioner was entitled to receive family

pension of Rs.11,035/- for the period from 04.01.2013 to 03.01.2023 and

thereafter, Rs.6,621/- from 04.01.2023 till the date of her re-marriage or

death whichever is earlier.

8. The respondent No.2 further submitted that the employee of

the lowest rank in Group-C is eligible for emoluments minimum

Rs.5,200/- that comes to Rs.5,830/- and Grade Pay Rs.1,900/- total

amounting to Rs.7,730/-. However, the mother of the petitioner was

receiving an amount of Rs.11,035/- from 04.01.2013 to 03.01.2023.

Thus, the mother of the petitioner was receiving pension which exceeded

the total emoluments of Group-C employee of the lowest rank which

comes to Rs.11,035/- per month. The exception to the general rule that

appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made

on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. The appointment of one of the dependent of the deceased

employee is by way of exception in favour of the dependents of an

employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury or without any 6/7 wp.7752.19-J.odt

means of livelihood. The whole object of granting compassionate

employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.

The writ petition was without any merit and he prayed to dismiss the

same.

9. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. The

application filed by the petitioner for appointment of compassionate

ground was rejected on 07.03.2015 stating the reason that as it does not

fulfill the criteria in view of Clause No.7(c) of the Bombay High Court

Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007.

Thereafter, again on 10.01.2019 he has filed another application for re-

consideration of his claim. It was not considered and filed as earlier

application was rejected. The father of the petitioner died in the year

2013. Though his first application was in the year 2015, till 2019 the

petitioner has not taken any action. He filed the writ petition before this

Court on 18.10.2019. There is delay and this ground is also considered by

the respondents while praying to reject the prayer for appointment on

compassion ground.

10. The main reason for rejecting the application is that it does

not fullfill the criteria in view of Clause 7(c) of the Bombay High Court

Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007.

Clause 7(c) says that "the total monthly income of such family is less than 7/7 wp.7752.19-J.odt

the total emoluments of Group C employee of lowest rank". It is not

disputed that the mother of the petitioner is receiving the family pension

of Rs.11035/-. Earlier she was getting provisional pension and now she is

getting regular pension. From 04.01.2013 to 03.01.2023 she received the

pension of Rs.11,035/-. Now she will receive the pension of Rs.6,621/-

per month. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the total

emoluments of the employee of the lowest rank in Group-C comes to

Rs.7,730/- which is less than the prescribed pay scale of Rs.5200-20200

for Group-C employees. When the petitioner has applied for appointment

on compassionate ground in the year 2015 at that time the family pension

was Rs.11,035/- which is more than the lowest rank in Group-C,

therefore, the respondent has rightly rejected the application as it does not

come under Clause 7(c) of the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for

Appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007. Moreover the pension

received by the family of the deceased employee is considered as an

income of the family. In view of Rule 7(c), the interference at the hands of

this Court is not required in the decision taken by the respondents. Hence,

the writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

Digitally signed byRANJANA MANOJ MANDADE Signing Date:04.02.2023 RGurnule.

16:00