Shri Gajanan Bahu-Uddeshiya ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9291 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:13174-DB


               J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt                                         1/14


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                                WRIT PETITION NO.2092 OF 2020

               1.         Shri Gajanan Bahu-Uddeshiya
                          Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur
                          through its Secretary
                          Ramesh Krishnarao Borkar
                          Office at Shri Gajanan Vidyalaya,
                          751, New Subhedar Layout, Nagpur

               2.         Shri Gajanan Vidyalaya and Junior
                          College, Nagpur through its Principal,
                          Vijay Ramesh Shahakar,
                          751, New Subhedar Layout,
                          Nagpur

               3.         Smt. Sunita Suresh Nimbulkar,
                          Aged 44 years, Occupation - Service,
                          R/o. Plot No.115, Ayodhya Nagar,
                          Nagpur
                                                                    ...PETITIONERS
                                             VERSUS
               1.         State of Maharashtra,
                          through its Secretary,
                          Department of School Education
                          and Sport, Mantralaya,
                          Mumbai - 32

               2.         Deputy Director of Education,
                          Nagpur Division, Balbharati,
                          Opp. Dhantoli Park,
                          Dhantoli, Nagpur

               3.         The Education Officer (Secondary)
                          Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
 J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt                                              2/14


_______________________________________________________
           Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners.
           Mr. M.K. Pathan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
           Nos.1 to 3/State.
_______________________________________________________

                  CORAM     : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
                              URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
          RESERVED ON       : AUGUST 30, 2023
       PRONOUNCED ON        : SEPTEMBER 05, 2023

JUDGMENT (Per Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. By this petition, petitioner No.3 who is widow at young age

has approached to this Court with prayer to direct respondent No.3 -

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur to grant

approval to the appointment of petitioner No.3 as a Peon in petitioner

No.2- School in terms of letter dated 10/01/2020.

3. Petitioner No.1 is an educational society which has

established petitioner No.2 - School which is grant-in-aid school. The

five posts of Peon were sanctioned in petitioner No.2 - School. The staff

approval orders are also filed along with this petition. Shri Suresh

Nimbulkar husband of petitioner No.3 was appointed as a Peon in

petitioner No.2 - School on the sanctioned post on 26/06/1990 in OBC J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 3/14

category. The appointment was approved by respondent No.3 as per

order dated 12/10/1990. Undisputedly, the five posts of Peon were

filled as per the rules and all appointments lawfully approved. Shri

Suresh Nimbulkar has expired suddenly on 04/03/2013 due to the

accident. Petitioner No.3 is the wife of the deceased Suresh and is

having minor daughter and minor son. She applied for grant of

appointment as Peon on compassionate ground. The post was sanctioned

post and had become vacant because of the death of the her husband.

The School Committee had accordingly passed the Resolution on

08/09/2013 for the appointment of petitioner No.3 on compassionate

ground with effect from 11/09/2013. She had joined the service in

petitioner No.2 - School on 11/09/2013 and is working as a "Peon" till

today. On 21/10/2013, petitioner No.2 had submitted proposal dated

21/10/2013 to respondent No.3 - the Education Officer (Secondary),

Zilla Parishad, Nagpur for grant of approval along with the copies of all

necessary documents. The proposal remained undecided, therefore,

repeated requests were made by letters dated 23/07/2014, 22/05/2015,

27/05/2019, 13/09/2019 and 10/10/2019. Finally on 10/01/2020,

respondent No.3 - the Education Officer as per the letter of the same

date has refused to grant approval and has directed petitioner No.1 to

discontinue the appointment. The above decision was taken by the

Education Officer by making the reference to the Government Resolution J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 4/14

dated 28/01/2019 alleging that revised staffing pattern for Class IV

employees has not been issued.

4. As per the contention of the petitioners, the appointment of

petitioner No.3 as a "Peon" on compassionate ground is the lawful

appointment. The post of "Peon" was the sanctioned post. Till

04/03/2013 the husband of the petitioner was working on the said post

as an approved "Peon". The proposal for grant of approval was

submitted by petitioner No.2 to respondent No.3 on 21/10/2013.

Respondent No.3 had never communicated any deficiency in the said

proposal. After his death, the compassionate appointment was granted

to petitioner No.3. Respondent No.3 illegally and arbitrarily refused to

grant the approval. Said order of the Education Officer (Secondary)

refusing to grant approval is illegal and liable to be set aside with

direction to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner No.3.

5. Said petition is opposed by the respondents on the ground

that the approval to the appointment was refused in view of the

Government Resolution dated 28/01/2019. The order passed by the

Education Officer is legal and reasonable one.

J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 5/14

6. Heard Shri B.G. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

He reiterated the said contentions and submitted that the action of the

Education Officer is arbitrary one. He placed on record the

communication to the Education Officer by the Section Officer of

Government of Maharashtra which says that the appointment on

compassionate ground on the post is originally a sanctioned post. It is

not a new appointment or not a creation of new post, and therefore, the

Education Officer shall not refuse the approval. He further placed

reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Yogita w/o Shivsing

Nikam Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2021 LawSuit (Bom) 875 . He

submitted that in view of the said decision, present case of the

petitioners is covered and directions are required to be issued to

respondent No.3, to grant the approval.

7. Shri M.K. Pathan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

the respondents reiterated the contention and submitted that in view of

the Government Resolution dated 28/01/2019, the approval is refused.

No illegality is committed by the Education Officer and hence, petition

deserves to be dismissed.

8. The issue involved in the present petition is that whether the

refusal by the Education Officer to the approval sought for the J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 6/14

appointment of petitioner No.3 is legal or not. It is well settled that the

object behind providing appointment on compassionate ground is by

way of an exception to the general rule of appointment on the basis of

open invitation of application and merit. While determining the financial

condition of the concerned family, whether the family is indigent or not

is to be ascertained for compassionate appointment. The whole object of

granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to

enable the family members of a deceased/incapacitated employee to tide

over the sudden financial crisis, the appointments on compassionate

ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress.

Admittedly, none can claim compassionate appointment by way of

inheritance. The compassionate appointment is a concession and not a

right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all the

aspirants, including the satisfaction that the family members have been

facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate

ground may assist them to tide over such distress. Time and again a

consistent view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters

of death of a permanent employee and the applicability of the policy of

compassionate appointment. A family which is rendered to the comforts

of life, there being a bread earner in the family, is shaken due to the

death of such a bread earner. This virtually throws the family into a

financial crisis. The purpose for which compassionate appointment J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 7/14

schemes have been introduced is laudable since it ensures that the

family which has suddenly faced a tragedy and is in mental and financial

distress, would be provided with succour. A model employer would

ensure that such a family is not rendered to starvation and it's members

are not required to beg for keeping their mind, body and soul together.

9. In the present case, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 considered these

aspects. There is no dispute that the husband of petitioner No.3 was

appointed on a sanctioned post on 26/06/1990 in OBC category. It is

also undisputed that he died due to the accident. His death left behind

wife, minor daughter and minor son. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have

considered this aspects and immediately passed a Resolution to grant

appointment to petitioner No.3 as a "Peon" on compassionate ground.

The post was sanctioned post and had become vacant because of the

death of her husband. It appears from the material placed on record

that there were total five sanctioned post of "Peon". The husband of

petitioner No.3 was appointed on the said sanctioned post. The

Education Officer (Secondary) has granted approval to the said post.

Thus, services of the deceased Suresh were approved by the Education

Officer. Accordingly, he served in petitioner No.1 - Institution till his

death. On 04/03/2013, he died in an accident. On 10/06/2013,

petitioner No.3 applied for the compassionate appointment by filing the J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 8/14

application addressed to petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 decided to

consider the application and had passed Resolution on 08/09/2013.

Accordingly, appointment order was issued to petitioner No.3.

Accordingly, she joined the services on 11/09/2013. Petitioner No.1 has

submitted proposal for the approval and thereafter several letters were

issued to approve the appointment of petitioner No.3. However, no

decision was taken and subsequently, it was rejected by respondent

No.3.

10. First time on 03/09/1990, the State Government issued a

Government Resolution to provide compassionate appointment to an

eligible member of a family, whose sole bread earner has suffered death,

while in employment or has been discharged from employment on

account of medical incapacitation. Voluntary retirement taken by a

permanent employee, who is suffering from a grave disease or terminal

illness, is also covered by such Government Resolution.

11. In a series of such Government Resolutions, the State also

introduced the Government Resolution dated 31/12/2002, which makes

a reference to 17 Government Resolutions earlier issued. Said

Government Resolution resolved as under :

"शासन निर्णय :-

शासनाने राज्यातील खाजगी (अनुदानित व विनाअनुदानित) J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 9/14

'kkGkae/khy शिक्षक व शिक्षकेतर कर्मचा-यांच्या नातेवाईकांना अनुकंपा तत्वावर सेवेत सामावून घेण्याबाबत शालेय शिक्षण विभागाने वेळोवेळी निर्गमित केलेले सर्व आदे श अधिक्रमित करून असे आदे श दे ण्यात येत आहे त की, राज्यातील खाजगी (अनुदानित व विनाअनुदानित) शाळातील शिक्षक व शिक्षकेतर कर्मचारी सेवेत असतां ना अकाली मृत्यू पावला वा कोणत्याही दु र्धर रोगाच्या कारणाने त्याला सेवानिवृत्ती पत्करावी लागली तर त्याचे लगतचे नातेवाईक पुढील अटी व 'krhZP;k अधिन राहून अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती मिळण्यास पात्र असतील:-

१. अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती दे ण्याबाबत राज्यातील सर्व खाजगी प्राथमिक, माध्यमिक व उच्च माध्यमिक तथा अध्यापक विद्यालयातील सर्व शिक्षक व शिक्षकेतर कर्मचा-यां ना सदरहु योजना लागू असेल.

२. मृत वा वैदयकीय कारणास्तव सेवानिवृत्त झालेल्या कर्मचा-यां च्या नातेवाईकास सेवेत सामावून घेण्याबाबतचे नियम सोबत जोडलेल्या परिशिष्ट "अ" मध्ये दे ण्यात आलेले आहे त.

३. संबंधित कर्मचा-यां च्या नातेवाईकानी नोकरीसाठी करावयाचा अर्ज व त्यासोबत सादर करावयाची कागदपत्रे याची माहिती परिशिष्ट "ब" मध्ये नमुद केल्यानुसार असेल.

४. ही योजना अं मलात आणण्यापर्वी अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती दे ण्या/ नाकरण्या बाबत निर्णय घेण्यात आला असल्यास ती प्रकरणे पुनर्विलोकनार्थ पुन्हा विचारात घेण्यात येऊ नयेत. मात्र दिनां क १ जानेवारी, २००१ नंतर ज्या कर्मचा-यां चे निधन झाले आहे वा जे कर्मचारी दु र्धर रोगाच्या कारणाने अकाली सेवानिवृत्त झालेले आहे त अशा कर्मचा-यां च्या कुटू ं बातील व्यक्तीनी अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियक्तीसाठी अर्ज केला असेल व त्यां ची विनंती अमान्य केली असेल तरी असे नातेवाईक या योजने मध्ये पुन्हा नव्याने अर्ज दाखल करु शकतात.

५. कर्मचारी मयत वा अकाली सेवानिवृत्त झाल्यावर तीन महिन्यां च्या आत किंवा कुटुं ब निवृत्तीवेतनाचे कागदपत्र सादर करतां ना संबंधित अधिका-याने आवश्यक माहिती (परिशिष्ट "क") नातेवाईकां ना उपलब्ध करून दयावी व विहित प्रपत्रातील उमेदवाराचा अर्ज पंधरा दिवसां च्या आत संबंधित शिक्षणाधिका-यां कडे सादर करावा.

६. प्राथमिक, माध्यमिक, उच्च माध्यमिक व अध्यापक विदयालयां च्या बाबतीत सर्व शिक्षणाधिकारी / शिक्षण निरीक्षकां नी सोबत जोडलेल्या परिशिष्ट "ड" मधील माहिती विभागीय शिक्षण उपसंचालकां मार्फ त शिक्षण संचालकां कडे पाठवावी.

J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 10/14

७. शाळा व अध्यापक विदयालयातील रु.५,५००-९,००० या वेतनश्रेणी पर्यंतच्या सर्व पदां ना अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती दे ता येईल. तसेच जी पदे भरण्यास शासनाने मंजुरी दिलेली आहे अशाच पदावरील नियुक्ती दे ण्यासाठी हे आदे श लागू राहातील.

हे आदे श सामान्य प्रशासन विभाग, वित्त विभागाच्या सहमतीने व वित्त विभागाच्या अनौपचारिक संदर्भ क्रमां क ८९२/०२/व्यय-६, दिनां क ३.७.२००२ अन्यवे निर्गमित करण्यात येत आहे त.

महाराष्ट्राचे राज्यपाल यां च्या आदे शानुसार व नावाने ."

12. Thus, the Government Resolution dated 31/12/2002 lays

down the parameters to be applied for appointment of an eligible

candidate, on compassionate basis.

13. Petitioner No.1 had considered all these aspects and

considering that the family of the deceased is in distress provided the

appointment to petitioner No.3 subject to the approval of respondent

No.3.

14. The Section Officer, State of Maharashtra issued Notification

dated 14/09/2022 which makes a reference that the post on which the

compassionate appointment is to be made is already a sanctioned post. It

is not a new recruitment or new creation of the post, and therefore, it

will not affect the ban on the recruitment or non-fixation of the roster.

Said Notification is reproduced hereunder :

J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 11/14

"उपरोक्त संदर्भाधीन आदे शान्वये मा. उच्च न्यायालयाने अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती दे णे ही मानवतेच्या दृष्टीकोनातून करण्यात येणारी कृती असून शिक्षणाधिकारी यां चेकडून शासन निर्णयाचा चूकीचा अर्थ लावून प्रस्ताव नाकारले जात असल्याचे नमूद केले आहे . वास्तविक अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती द्यावयाचे पद हे मूळत: मंजूर असते , केवळ त्या पदावर या तत्वां तर्गत नियुक्ती करावयाची असल्यामुळे ही नवीन पदभरती नसते किंवा ही नवीन पदनिर्मिती दे खील नसते असेही निरीक्षण मा. न्यायालयाने नमूद केले आहे . त्यामुळे या नियुक्तीवर कोणत्याही पदभरतीबंदीचा वा आकृतिबंध निश्चित नसल्याचा प्रभाव पडत नाही, असे मत मा. उच्च न्यायालयाने नमूद केले आहे . तसेच, यापुढे अशाप्रकारे अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती नाकारल्याविरुद्ध याचिका मा. न्यायालयासमोर आल्यास संबंधित अधिकाऱ्यां वर शिस्तभंगविषयक कडक कारवाई तसेच मा. न्यायालयाच्या अपमान प्रकरणी कारवाई करण्याचे संकेतही मा. न्यायालयाने दिले आहे त. त्यानुषंगाने मा. उच्च न्यायालयाने उपरोक्त संदर्भ क्र.३ अन्वये दिलेल्या निर्देशास अनुसरुन राज्यातील शिक्षकेतर कर्मचा-यां च्या अनुकंपा नियुक्तीबाबतच्या प्रस्तावां वर निर्णय घेताना खालील बाबी ंनुसार कार्यवाही करण्याबाबत सू चित करण्यात येत आहे .

१) अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती द्यावयाचे पद हे यापूर्वीच मंजूर पद असल्याने व अनुकंपा तत्त्वावरील पदभरती ही नवीन भरती नसल्याने तसेच अनुकंपा तत्त्वावर नियुक्ती दे ताना संबंधित पद नव्याने निर्माण केले जात नसल्यामुळे, अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती दे ण्याच्या प्रस्तावावर कार्यवाही करताना, पदभरती बंदी वा आकृतिबंध निश्चित नसल्याच्या कारणास्तव प्रस्ताव अमान्य न करता त्यावर गुणवत्तेनुसार कार्यवाही करावी.

२) अनुकंपा तत्वावर नियुक्ती दे ताना, नियुक्ती द्यावयाचा उमेदवार कर्मचारी

ज्या पदावर कार्यरत होता त्या पदावर नियुक्तीस पात्र ठरत नसल्यास, त्याis{kk खालच्या वर्गाच्या इतर पदावर त्यास अनुकंपा तत्वा अंतर्गत समायोजित करावे व यासाठी सक्षम प्राधिकारी अशी पदे उपलब्ध आहे त किंवा कसे याची शहानिशा करुन या उमेदवारांना पात्र उमेदवारां च्या प्रतीक्षा यादीमध्ये समाविष्ट करतील.

३) मा. उच्च न्यायालयाने नमूद केल्यानुसार अतिविलंबाने (साधारणतः १० वर्षानंतर) अनुकंपा तत्यावर नियुक्तीबाबत मागणीचे प्रस्ताव अतिविलंबाच्या कारणास्तव, सदर कुटुं बास याची आवश्यकता नसल्याचे व अनुकंपा तत्वाचा हे तू साध्य होत नसल्याच्या कारणास्तव अमान्य करता येतील.

J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 12/14

४) उपरोक्त सूचना ह्या अनुकंपा तत्वावरील नियुक्तीच्या अनुषंगाने दाखल विविध न्यायालयीन प्रकरणी मा. न्यायालयाने दिलेल्या आदे शां स अनुसरुन दे ण्यात येत असल्याने , याबाबत आवश्यक ती कार्यवाही करावी व मा. न्यायालयाच्या आदे शां चा अवमान होणार नाही याची दक्षता घ्यावी. यासंदर्भात मा. न्यायालयाच्या आदे शां चा अवमान झाल्यास त्यास संबंधित अधिकारी/प्राधिकारी जवाबदार राहतील.

५) एखाns व्यवस्थापन अनुकंपा तत्वावरील नियुक्तीसाठी पात्र उमेदवाराचा न्याय्य हक्क डावलीत असल्याचे निदर्शनास आल्यास संबंधित शिक्षणाधिकारी

;kauh संबंधित व्यवस्थापनाविरुध्द नियमानुसार कारवाई करावी."

15. The Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat has dealt

with this issue in Writ Petition No.7507/2016 (Smt. Samita Sameer

Desai and anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.) wherein also the

petitioner therein was appointed on compassionate ground. The family

was solely dependent upon the source of income of the deceased. The

facts in that case indicate that the application of the wife of the deceased

was considered and it was resolved to appoint her on compassionate

basis in place of her deceased husband. An appointment order was

issued in her favour. This Court has observed in paragraph No.9 which

reads thus :

"9. It is common ground that the appointment is sought by petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground. The very object and purpose of such employment and conferring a power to make appointment on compassionate ground is that the employer assists the family to tide over the financial crisis caused by the loss of bread winner. It is an assistance to the family and which is in distress. In the circumstances, this is not a fresh appointment or an appointment which ordinarily requires the approval. All that would suffice is an intimation J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 13/14

from petitioner No.2 that the husband of petitioner No.1 was already appointed as a Peon and that post was permanent and duly sanctioned. Having appointed him, it was revealed that he died suddenly on 2nd November, 2011. In his place, in terms of Government policy, compassionate appointment was sought and it is that appointment which has been made. There is no post created nor is there any question of an appointment being made through recruitment process which was covered by the ban. The ban, thus, could not have covered this appointment."

16. The similar facts are in the present case also. This aspect is

also considered by this Court in the case of Yogita w/o Shivsing Nikam

Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (supra) where on a similar facts this

Court has held that an employees who was already appointed on

compassionate ground is unjustifiably refused approval. Thus, it is

apparent that despite the legal position is clear, respondent No.3 made

the petitioners to run from pillar to post for the approval of the services

of petitioner No.3. The proposal was pending for the approval with

respondent No.3 since 2013. All these years are spent by petitioner No.3

in agony without any reason. We find that this Court has consistently

taken a view that compassionate appointment would be an exception to

the mandatory rule of following specific selection procedure for

recruitment on vacant post or on newly created post. We have noticed

the agony and the harassment caused to the litigants in the present case.

It is the conduct of respondent No.3 which has deprived petitioner No.3

from getting the fruits of her employment, and the right of eligible J.953.WP.2092.2020.odt 14/14

candidate was defeated. In view of the above, this petition deserves tobe

allowed. Hence we proceed to pass following order :

(i) The impugned order/letter dated 10/01/2020 of

refusing the approval, stands quashed and set aside.

(ii) We direct respondent No.3 - the Education Officer

(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur to grant approval to the

appointment of petitioner No.3 forthwith as "Peon" in

petitioner No.2 - School with effect from 11/09/2013 and to

release her remuneration and salary; all arrears and benefits

within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.

17. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

*Divya

Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/09/2023 15:03:15