Sou. Surekha Rahul Koli, Nee, ... vs The Divisional Agricultural ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1164 Bom

                                                                   1/4
                                                                                       11-WP-5014-2014.doc


            rrpillai                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 5014 OF 2014

                                 Sou. Surekha Rahul Koli, Nee Surekha             ... Petitioners
                                 Krushna Kodole & Anr.
                                              vs.
                                 The Divisional Agricultural Joint Director, ... Respondents
                                 Kolhapur Division and Ors.


                                 Mr. Manoj Patil for the Petitioners.
                                 Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 6 - State.
                                 Mr Ajit R. Pitale for Respondent nos. 3 and 4.

                                                       CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ. &
                                                                SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : 3 FEBRUARY, 2023 P.C. :-

1. The petitioner no. 1 had filed application for appointment

on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioners expired

on 6 May 2002 in harness. The petitioner no. 1 on 16

September 2002 applied for appointment on compassionate

ground. On or about 5 August 2011 the employer issued letter

to petitioner no. 1 to remain present so that further steps for

appointment can be undertaken. The name of the petitioner no.

              Digitally signed   1 was recommended             for appointment on compassionate
RAJESHWARI by RAJESHWARI
RAMESH     RAMESH PILLAI
PILLAI     Date: 2023.02.06
              17:04:44 +0530     ground to Class III vacant post.

                                                   11-WP-5014-2014.doc

2. The petitioner no. 1 it appears remained present on 16

August 2011, however, on 18 August 2011 the petitioner no. 1

wrote a letter pursuant to information received from

respondent no. 1 stating that since she is married she is not

entitled for claim on compassionate ground and she shall not

be treated as heir of her father and she is unable to attend the

office of respondent no. 1. On or about 24 August 2011 the

respondent no.1 issued letter to the petitioner no. 1 stating

that since she is already married she cannot be appointed on

compassionate ground. Thereafter the present petition is filed.

3. In the year 2019, petitioner no. 2 was added as party

wherein employment was also claimed for him. Learned

counsel Mr. Patil for the petitioners submits that though

petitioner no. 1 was married still she was entitled for

appointment on compassionate ground as the married

daughter is also entitled for appointment on compassionate

ground. It is further submitted that in case petitioner no. 1 is

not considered for appointment on compassionate ground, the

case of petitioner no. 2 ought to have been considered. But the

case of petitioner no. 2 is also not considered. According to the

learned counsel for the petitioners the substitution is

permissible.

11-WP-5014-2014.doc

4. To substantiate his contention the learned counsel for the

petitioner relies upon the judgment of the division bench of

this court in Aparna vs. Asst. Superintendent Engineer 1 to

contend that even married daughter is entitled for

appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the

judgment of this court in Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane vs.

State of Maharashtra and Ors.2, the learned counsel submits

that the names of the person in the waiting list can be

substituted. The GR directing that the name cannot be

substituted has been set aside by this court. Reliance is also

placed on the order of the Division bench of this court dated 27

June 2022 in Writ Petition No. 5179 of 2021.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners , the

petitioners are in need of employment and have no other

source of livelihood.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents also.

The appointment on compassionate ground is not source of

recruitment nor is a right. The purpose and object of

appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate

succor to the family of the deceased who has died in harness.

1 (2011) (5) Mh.L.J. 290 2 2020 DGLS (Bom) 125

11-WP-5014-2014.doc

The father of the petitioners expired on 6 May 2002. 22 years

have lapsed. In the year 2011, the employer offered to employ

petitioner no.1. Petitioner no. 1 got married in year 2009.

Subsequently petitioner no. 2 attained majority in the year

2008. Petitioner no. 2 never filed application for appointment

on compassionate ground even till date. In case the petitioner

no. 1 was not eligible for appointment, petitioner no. 2 would

have filed application immediately in the year 2011 as

petitioner no. 2 had attained majority in the year 2008.

7. The long delay would be a major factor in the case of

compassionate ground. In view of the fact that more than 22

years have lapsed and that the petitioner no. 2 never made an

application seeking employment on compassionate ground it

would be too late for grant of appointment on compassionate

ground.

8. Writ Petition as such is disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)