Vijay Sampat Sakpal vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4508 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:13495-DB

             k                                     1/4                      45 wp 9640.22 as.doc




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO.9640 OF 2022

             Vijay Sampat Sakpal                                      ....Petitioner
                   V/S
             State of Maharashtra & Anr.                              ....Respondents
                                                         ...

             Dr. Vipan B. Kumar a/w Ms. Sunita R. Vishwakarma and Mr. Akshay
             Longave i/b Mr. Saroj Shinde for the Petitioner.
             Mrs. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
             Mr. Santosh Parad a/w Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar for Respondent No.2-Corporation.
                                                 ...

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

DATE : 2nd MAY 2023.

P.C.:

1 The father of the Petitioner retired on superannuation on 1 st July

2015.

2 The Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground

in his place. The Application of the Petitioner is rejected on the ground

that the Petitioner is convicted for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

3 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner

had filed an Application seeking appointment on compassionate ground

katkam 1/4

k 2/4 45 wp 9640.22 as.doc

in the year 2015. The conviction of the Petitioner was in the year 2017.

The Police Department also took more than five years to give report and

after seven years of the Petitioner making the application, the

Respondent rejected the Application of the Petitioner.

4 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that considering

the backgrounds from which Petitioner comes i.e. from the social and

culturally backward background, the Respondent could have considered

the case of the Petitioner. It was just that the friends of the Petitioner

were smoking and the Petitioner joined them. A stray act ought not to be

relevant for denying the Petitioner public employment. The Petitioner

cannot be said to be a criminal inasmuch as the imposition of minor fine

would not disentitle him from claiming public employment. The

Government Resolution providing employment to the legal heir in place

of his father after his retirement is a social and welfare decision. The

purpose of the said Government Resolution has to be considered. The

learned Advocate relies upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in a case

of Commissioner of Police vs. Maheshkumar and others dated 29th April

2013. Relying upon the said judgment it is submitted that life is too

precious to be staked over petty incidents and the cruel result of

katkam 2/4

k 3/4 45 wp 9640.22 as.doc

conviction for petty offences being the end of the career, the future in the

present, of young and inexperienced persons cannot blast their life and

their dreams.

5        We have considered the submissions.

6        The Petitioner is not seeking employment through competition but

is seeking employment on compassionate ground.

7 Employment on compassionate ground is not a right. However, is

governed by the executive instructions pursuant to which the benefit of

the executive instructions are claimed. The Government Resolution dated

26th October 2014 bars persons from employment on compassionate

ground if they are convicted or trial is pending in respect of the offences

enumerated in the Government Resolution.

8 Conviction under the NDPS Act is one such an offence where the

person is disentitled from claiming appointment on compassionate

ground. The said Government Resolution is still in force. The same is not

assailed.

9 It would appear that two criminal cases were lodged against the

Petitioner. C.R No.32 of 2013 was lodged under section 124 and the

katkam 3/4

k 4/4 45 wp 9640.22 as.doc

Petitioner was acquitted in the said case. In the second case in C.R. No.27

of 2015, he was convicted for an offence punishable under 8(c) read with

section 27 of the NDPS Act. It is noted that the Petitioner faced a solitary

criminal case.

10 Be that as it may the Petitioner is convicted for an offence under

the provisions of NDPS Act. Though only the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed

upon the Petitioner, the Petitioner stands convicted for the offence

punishable under the NDPS Act. The Government Resolution does not

permit employment on compassionate ground to those persons who are

convicted for an offence under NDPS Act. The said Government

Resolution is not subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

11 In light of the aforesaid observations, no case for interference is

made out, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

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




katkam                                    4/4