Amanulla S Mahaldar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2457 Bom

                      Diksha Rane                                  13. wp 13889-17.doc




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 DIKSHA                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 DINESH
 RANE                               WRIT PETITION NO.13889 OF 2017
Digitally signed by
DIKSHA DINESH
RANE                  Amanulla S. Mahaldar                         ..Petitioner
Date: 2023.03.16
17:46:22 +0530             VS.
                      The State of Maharashtra
                      through Secretary & ors.                   ..Respondents
                                                 ------------
                      Adv. N. Y. Chavan for the petitioner.
                      Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for the respondent nos.1 to 4.
                                                 ------------

                                    CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.&
                                           SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE: MARCH 14, 2023

P.C.:-

1. The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate

ground.

2. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1997. The

mother of the petitioner applied for the appointment on

compassionate ground. The name of the mother was placed

in the list of persons to be appointed on compassionate

ground. The name of the mother of the petitioner figured at

Serial No.3 in the wait list. In 2007, two posts were available

to appoint on compassionate ground. The persons at serial

nos. 1 and 2 were appointed. The mother of the petitioner

Diksha Rane 13. wp 13889-17.doc

attained the age of 40 years, her name was deleted from

the wait list. The petitioner became major in the year 2011,

and applied for appointment on the compassionate ground.

As the application was not decided, the applicant

approached the Tribunal. The respondent rejected the

application of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner filed the original application before the

Tribunal against the rejection of the application. The Tribunal

dismissed the original application. Aggrieved thereby the

present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his

mother was not given appointment on compassionate

ground. The petitioner became major in 2011. None from his

family is given appointment on compassionate ground.

Immediately upon becoming major, the petitioner filed the

application seeking appointment on compassionate

ground . The respondent rejected the same only on the

ground that there is no substantive provision for

substitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

there is no impediment to consider the case of the

petitioner. For no fault of the petitioner, he was denied the

Diksha Rane 13. wp 13889-17.doc

appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the

decision of the Division Bench dated 9/12/2009 in Writ

Petition No.7793/2009. So also, he relies upon the judgment

of the Apex Court in the case of Supriya Suresh Patil @

Sow Supriya Pratik Kadam vs. State of Maharashtra

and others reported in 2018 (4) SLR 771 and the

judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition

No.13932/2017 dated 18/7/2018.

6. We have heard learned AGP.

7. In Writ Petition No.7793/2009, this Court under order

dated 9/12/2009 directed the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioner therein and pass appropriate order. In

case of Supriya Suresh Patil (supra), the Apex Court had

passed order under Article 142 of the Constitution of India

and further observed that the said judgment shall not be

treated as a precedent. In case of Writ Petition

No.13932/2017, the Division Bench of this Court in order

dated 18/7/2018 directed to include the name of the

respondent no.2 in the waiting list for compassionate

appointment in Group-D category at the appropriate

Diksha Rane 13. wp 13889-17.doc

position.

8. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in case of N.C.

Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2020) 7

SCC 617 has held that the policy as on the date of accrual

of the right would apply. When the right accrued to the

petitioner, there was no provision to substitute the name of

the mother after she had crossed age limit. The Tribunal has

considered the said aspect. Moreover, after 25 years, the

purpose of compassionate appointment may not be served.

The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide

immediate success to the family dying in harness.

9. In the light of the above observations, the writ petition

is disposed of.

10. No costs.

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