Bombay High Court
Sunanda Kisna Sathone And Another vs State Of Maharashtra, Ministry Of Law ... on 15 January, 2024
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.S. Jawalkar
wp 618-2023.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.618/2023
1. Sunanda Kisna Sathone
Aged about 30 years, occ. Peon,
CJJD Court, Ashti.
2. Prasad Kisan Sathone
Aged about 35 years, Occu. Unemployed
Both the petitioners r/o Old bus Stop,
Gurudeo Colony, Ashti, Tq. Ashti,
District Wardha
....PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Ministry of Law and Judiciary,
Through its Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Registrar (Personal), High Court,
Appellate Side, Bombay.
3. Registrar (Personal), Bombay High
Court, Bench at Nagpur.
4. Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Wardha, Tq. & Dist. Wardha.
...RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.P. Thakare, Advocate for petitioners
Ms S.S. Jachak, Addl.G.P. for respondent No.1
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wp 618-2023.odt 2/6
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ..
DATED: 15/01/2024
(ORAL) JUDGMENT (PER AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of Shri Thakare, learned Counsel for petitioners, Ms
Jachak, learned Addl. G.P. for respondent No.1 and Shri Sambre,
learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The petition seeks appointment of the petitioner No.2
with the respondent No.4 on compassionate grounds on account
of demise of his father namely Kisna Sathone, who was working
as a Peon, at the time of his demise, on 29/06/2008. It is necessary
to note that the employee namely Kisna Sathone was succeeded
by his widow/petitioner No.1 and his son petitioner No.2, who
was a minor at the time of his demise.
3. Shri Thakare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners
submits, that the basic intention under the policy of compassionate
appointment, was to provide employment to petitioner No.2/the
son of deceased employee, however since, at that time, he was
minor, the employment was given to the widow of the employee
namely petitioner No.1. According to him, this is reflected from
the communication dated 04/06/2009, (Page 17) and also the
subsequent communication dated 07/01/2017, 21/02/2017 and
23/02/2017, which have been tendered across the bar and taken
on record and collectively marked as 'X' for the purpose of
identification.
4. Learned Counsel for petitioners, therefore, submits that
employment granted to the petitioner No.1 on a compassionate
basis, would be subject to the condition as indication in
communication dated 04/06/2009 (page 17) as since the petitioner
No.2 has now attained the majority, he is entitled to be granted an
employment on compassionate basis. He also contends, that the
employment of petitioner no.1 was not on compassionate basis,
but was an adjustment of a temporary nature till such time
petitioner No.2 attained majority.
5. Mr Sambre, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4
while opposing the petition, contents that on account of the
demise of the original employee on 29/06/2010, his widow was
granted appointment on compassionate basis on 16/06/2009 as a
peon, whose services has also been regularized on 11/03/2020
and, therefore, the claim now being made by petitioner No.2, is
only an attempt to secure employment by a back door entry,
which according to him is not permissible and petition is,
therefore, required to be rejected.
6. The principles regarding grant of compassionate
appointment have been summed up by the learned Full Bench in
the case of Nilima Raju Khapekar Vs. Executive Director, Bank of
Baroda, 2022, SCC OnLine Bom. 10375 in para 19 and it has been
held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a
matter of right or by way of inheritance but is offered on
humanitarian grounds, as an exception to the rule of equality in
the matter of public employment. It is a concession and is granted
to the family of the deceased to tide over the situation in which
they find themselves on account of the demise of the bread earner,
and is with an intent to provide immediate succour to the family
in need. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that on account of
the demise of the original employee Kisan Sathone, who was
working as a Peon on 29/06/2008, his widow/petitioner No.1 was
granted employment, initially on a temporary basis as a Peon with
the respondent No.4 which employment has been regularized
w.e.f. 11/03/2020. That being the position, the immediate succour,
which is the basis for granting compassionate appointment stands
fructified. Though, the communication dated 04/06/2009,
indicates a recommendation that appointment of petitioner No.1
was on ad-hoc basis till the eldest son of the applicant attains the
age of majority, that is only a recommendation and nothing else
and, therefore, cannot over-ride the very basis of the policy as
framed in that regard. The above position, therefore, would
indicate that the employment of the petitioner No.1 was indeed on
compassionate basis, which has since been regularized. In that
view of the matter, we do not see any case to interfere in the
communication dated 06/06/2022 (page 39), which declines the
request of the petitioner No.2 for employment on compassionate
basis. The petition is, therefore, without any merits and is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/01/2024 18:05:14
