[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Amol Bhagwandas Bairagi vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Urban ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:52779-DB
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7315 OF 2025
Amol Bhagwandas Bairagi
Age : 34 Years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. House No. 237, Mumbai-Agra Road,
Village - Vilholi, Tal & Dist - Nashik ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through Urban Development Department
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Nashik Municipal Corporation,
Nashik, Dist. Nashik. ... Respondents
****
Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
****
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24th NOVEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 03rd DECEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is
heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
2. Petitioner by the present Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India assails two orders; firstly, order dated
30.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the Petitioner's
Application dated 02.04.2014 for his appointment on compassionate
ground and the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.2
rejecting the subsequent representations dated 02.09.2024, 25.09.2024,
12.11.2024 and 23.11.2024, seeking compassionate appointment.
3. Material facts in this petition are that the Petitioner's father
Bhagwandas Madandas Bairagi (Bhagwandas) was working as a driver
in the Motor Repairing Department of the Nashik Municipal
Corporation, at Nashik since 21.07.2003. Bhagwandas suffered a heart
attack and passed away on 30.05.2005. Bhagwandas left behind his wife
Smt. Bharati Bhagwandas Bairagi (Bharati), two daughters (viz.
Bhavana & Puja) and 2 sons (viz. Petitioner & Mayur). Petitioner's
mother made an Application dated 23.06.2005 to the Respondent No. 2
for compensation and other benefits after the demise of Bhagwandas.
4. Bhagwandas had a second wife by name Sunita, from
whom Bhagwandas had three children. Sunita had filed Regular Civil
Suit No. 277 of 2005 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
Division, Nashik seeking a declaration, that Sunita be declared as the
legally married wife of Bhagwandas and that Bharati and her family
members have no relation with Bhagwandas.
5. Bharati and her family members (which includes the
Petitioner) filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 141 of 2005 before
the Civil Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956 for
a Succession Certificate.
6. By a common Judgment dated 16.08.2007, Regular Civil
Suit No.277 of 2005 was dismissed, whereas the Civil Miscellaneous
Application No. 141 of 2005 filed by Bharati was allowed and
consequently Succession Certificate was ordered to be issued in the
name of Bharati and her family members.
7. Sunita questioned the said common Judgment passed in
Regular Civil Suit No.277 of 2005, by filling Civil Appeal No. 275 of
2007, before the District Court, Nashik. Vide Judgment dated
14.08.2013, the District Court partly allowed the Civil Appeal No. 275 of
2007, by modifying the common Judgment dated 16.08.2007, thereby
declaring children of Sunita to be entitled to equal rights in the property
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
of Bhagwandas, consequently Succession Certificate was ordered to be
issued in the in name of Sunita's children alongwith Bharati and her
family members.
8. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 14.08.2013 passed in
Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2007, Sunita filed Second Appeal No. 322 of
2014 before this Court. During the pendency of the said appeal Second
Appeal, Sunita and Bharati vide Minutes of Order dated 12.07.2017,
amicably resolved to share the amounts of gratuity and other service
benefits payable to Bhagwandas in eight (8) equal shares (1/8th share) in
favour of the three (3) children of Sunita and four (4) children of Bharati.
Question of who being the legally wedded wife of Bhagwandas and who
being entitled to the balance 1/8th share was left open to be decided in
the said Second appeal on merits.
9. Vide Judgment dated 15.12.2023, Second Appeal No. 322
of 2014 was disposed by holding Bharati as the legally wedded wife of
Bhagwandas, thus being entitled to the remaining 1/8th share of the
amount of pension payable lying in the pension account of Bhagwandas.
10. Petitioner on 02.04.2014 had filed Application before
Respondent No.2 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Said
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
Application was rejected by the Respondent No.2 on 30.01.2023,
holding the same being beyond the period of one year, as prescribed in
the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017.
11. Petitioner vide his representations dated 02.09.2024,
25.09.2024, 12.11.2024 and 23.11.2024, repeated his request to the
Respondent No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground.
12. By order dated 04.12.2024 Respondent No.2 rejected the
said representations, by reiterating the request being beyond the period
of one year.
13. Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, learned Advocate for the Petitioner
submits that the Petitioner at the time of death of Bhagwandas was a
minor. He submits that in view of the dispute between his mother
(Bharati) and the second wife (Sunita), Petitioner could not file an
Application seeking compassionate appointment. He submits that the
said dispute between Bharati and Sunita was settled on 15.12.2023 in
Second Appeal No. 322 of 2014. He therefore submits that the
Application dated 02.04.2014 as well as the subsequent representations
filed by the Petitioner were required to be considered and the delay in
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
filing the Application is required to be condoned. He submits that
Respondent No.2 has erroneously rejected the applications /
representations filed by the Petitioner seeking compassionate
appointment.
14. Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.2 has opposed the Petition. She has placed on record the Government
Resolution dated 21.09.2017 issued by the General Administration
Department of the Government of Maharashtra. She places reliance on
Clause 10 (A) of the said resolution to support the rejection orders.
15. From the rival contentions of the parties the question that
falls for our consideration is whether Respondent No.2 was justified in
rejecting the applications / representations filed by the Petitioner seeking
appointment on compassionate basis, on the ground of the same being
beyond limitation?
16. A perusal of the policy for compassionate appointment, as
framed by the Respondent State, vide Government Resolution dated
21.09.2017 indicates the objective behind the grant of compassionate
appointment, is to enable the family members of the deceased employee
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve them from financial
destitution due to the untimely death of their bread winner.
17. Clause 10(A), Clause 10(B) and Clause, 10(C) of Annexure-
A to the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 are transcribed herein
below:- (१०) अर्ज करण्यासाठी मुदतः-
(अ) अनुकंपा निनयुक्तीसाठी निदवंगत शासकीय कमचाऱ्यांच्या कुटु ंबातील
पात्र नातेवाईकाने शासकीय अधि&कारी/कमचारी निदवंगत झाल्याच्या
निदनांकापासून एक वर्षााच्या मुदतीत संबं&ीत निनयुक्ती प्राधि&काऱ्याकडे निवनि.त
नमुन्यात परिरपूर्ण अर्ज सादर करर्णे आवश्यक आ.े. (शासन निनर्णय,
२२/८/२००५ व शासन परिरपत्रक, निद. ०५.०२.२०१०)
(आ) सेवेत असताना निदवंगत झाले ल्या कमचाऱ्यांच्या कुटु ंबातील अज्ञान
वारासदाराच्या बाबतीत एकाने सज्ञान म्.र्णर्जे १८ वर्षााचा झाल्यावर एक
वर्षााच्या आत अनुकंपा निनयुक्तीसाठी परिरपूर्ण अर्ज सादर करर्णे आवश्यक
आ.े.
शासन निनयय, ११.९.१९९६ व शासन परिरपत्रक, निद.०५.०२.२०१०)
(इ) पात्र वारसदारास निवनि.त १ वर्षााच्या मुदतीनंतर २ वर्षा इतक्या
कालाव&ीपय=त (मृत्यूच्या निदनांकापासून ३ वर्षाापय=त) तसेच निदवंगत
शासकीय कमचाऱ्यांच्या अज्ञान वारसदाराच्या बाबतीत तो उमेदवार सज्ञान
झाल्यानंतर निवनि.त १ वर्षााच्या मुदतीनंतर २ वर्षाापय=त (सज्ञान झाल्यानंतर
३ वर्षाापय=त) अर्ज सादर करण्यास निवलं ब झाल्यास असा निवलं ब क्षमानिपत
करण्याचे अधि&कार संबं&ीत मंत्रालयीन प्रशासकीय निवभागाच्या निवभाग
प्रमुखांना देण्यात येत आ.ेत."
18. Case of the Petitioner as set out in the petition is that
Petitioner was under an impression of his mother having filed an
Application seeking appointment on compassionate ground after the
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
death of his father. Thus, it is not the case of the Petitioner of the
Petitioner not being aware of his entitlement to get compassionate
appointment in terms of the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017.
Paragraph No. 15G of the memo of petition, is extracted herein below:-
"G. That the Petitioner was under impression that his mother has
already filed Application for getting service on compassionate ground
after the death of his father."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of
West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors1, after considering its
earlier pronouncement, has laid down the following principles in
paragraph Nos. 32 to 40, which reads as under:
32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the
following principles emerge:
32.1. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure
from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by
following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision
enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it
is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be
resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the
family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
32.2. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the
State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the
deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the
family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
32.3. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be
exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be
claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately
1 (2025) 5 SCC 712
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case
pending for years.
32.5. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all
relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the
family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family,
the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the
income from any other source.
33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate
employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over
the sudden crisis due to the death of the breadearner which has left the
family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure
humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a
position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful
appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would
be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of
the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death
of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling
need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning
compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the
scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Where a long
lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased
employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate
appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this
would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities
in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate
appointment has been made out for consideration.
34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for
compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee
would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of
the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The
financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death
of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the
authorities' decision in the matter.
35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first
instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment
could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view
that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part
of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the
authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and
lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased,
may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the
government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of
delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most
probably by availing gainful employment from some other source.
Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this
Court in Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 :
1998 SCC (L&S) 31] would amount to treating a claim for
compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance
based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since
compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative
to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependants of the
deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim
for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a
considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.
36. Laches or undue delay, the blameworthy conduct of a person in
approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary
relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained
succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper
Armstrong Hurd [Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd,
(1874) LR 5 PC 221] as under : (LR pp. 239-40)
"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a
technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy,
either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly
be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and
neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other
party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the
remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of
time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against
relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that
delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the
validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially
equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the
length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval,
which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in
taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy."
37. Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief
to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief
to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article
226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [Moon Mills Ltd.
v. M.R. Meher, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 117 : AIR 1967 SC 1450] . In the
said case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant
of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal,
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
(1986) 4 SCC 566] this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier
pronouncements in the following words : (SCC pp. 594-95, para 24)
24.... the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not
ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the
lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such
delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to
intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated
that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not
ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is
likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train
new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable
delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and
inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that
when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the
creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which
also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise
such jurisdiction.
39. While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of
limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a
reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana [Jagdish Lal v.
State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1550] ;
NDMC v. Pan Singh [NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398] .
40. Further, simply because the respondent-writ petitioners submitted
their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-2006, it
cannot be said that they diligently pursued the matter and had not
slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to
the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan
Singh Bhandari [State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh
Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 32] , wherein
the following observations were made : (SCC p. 184, para 19)
"19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if
the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations
relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a
fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a
phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the
competent authority does not arrest time."
20. Records bear out that Petitioner is 34 years of age.
Application for compassionate appointment was made by the Petitioner
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
in the year 2014, after nine (9) years from the demise of Bhagwandas.
Said application was not disposed till the year 2023. Petitioner did not
approach this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus against the
Respondent No.2 for consideration of his application 02.04.2014. Said
Application was rejected on 30.01.2023. Petitioner without questioning
the said rejection made representations dated 02.09.2024, 25.09.2024,
12.11.2024 and 23.11.2024 repeating his request for compassionate
appointment. On the face of the rejection order dated 30.01.2023, the
subsequent representations were not tenable. Said representations were
rejected on 04.12.2024.
21. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide
succor to the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness.
Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 provides for time limit for
making an Application by the family member of the deceased employee.
Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment.
Petitioner and his family members have received the gratuity and other
pensionary benefits payable to the pension account of Bhagwandas.
There is no justification much less any legally acceptable reasons put
forth by the Petitioner for the belated filing of the Application seeking
compassionate appointment. Averments as to whether the family is in
38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt
financial crisis, liabilities of the family, if any, the age, dependency and
marital status of its members, together with the income from any other
source are missing in the petition. Applying the law in the case of State
of West Bengal (supra), no case for indulgence is made out by the
Petitioner.
22. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the
rejection orders made by the Respondent No.2, rejecting the requests
made by the Petitioner for compassionate appointment, almost after 10
years from the demise of Bhagwandas.
23. Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs, consequently the
Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
