Bombay High Court
Rohit Devdas Mohite vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 24 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:32010-DB
1 915-WP-17384-24.doc
BHARAT
DASHARATH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PANDIT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2025.07.30
11:56:14 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 17384 OF 2024
Rohit Devdas Mohite ... Petitioner
V/s
State of Maharashtra and Others ... Respondents
Mr. Nilesh Wable i/b Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. with Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the respondent
nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 24TH JULY 2025
Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J:
Aggrieved by the order dated 9th August 2024 passed by the
Education Officer (Secondary) by which the claim for compassionate
appointment made by the petitioner has been rejected, this writ petition
has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Briefly stated, the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28 th
October, 2006. The petitioner has pleaded that his mother made an
application on 29th November 2006 seeking appointment on
compassionate ground but that application was kept pending and not
decided. The petitioner made an application for compassionate
appointment on 15th June 2023 after attaining the age of 18 years on 5th
April 2020. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned
order dated 9th August 2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to the decision of Full Bench of this Court in " Kalpana wd/o
Vilas Taram and another", 2024(4) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 312 to submit that the
application by the petitioner was in the nature of a substitution
application and was permissible in view of the decision in " Kalpana"
B.D.Pandit-SPS
2 915-WP-17384-24.doc
(supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the
decision in "Amol Hiralal Telrandhe vs. State of Maharashtra, Through
its Secretary for Rural Development Department and Others" 2024 SC
OnLine Bom 2006 to criticize the impugned order dated 9 th August
2024 on the ground that the petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment could not have been rejected on the ground that he was
the third child of the deceased employee.
3. This is well settled that the schemes of compassionate appointment
are founded on humanitarian grounds to provide immediate relief to
the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial
crisis. In "Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors. " (2011) 4
SCC 209, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the schemes for
compassionate appointment are carved out by way of a policy which
partakes the character of the service rules. In "State Bank of India &
Anr. vs. Somvir Singh", (2007) 4 SCC 778, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the right for consideration for appointment must be traceable
under any scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the
employer and there can be no right whatsoever to claim compassionate
appointment on any ground other than what has been provided by the
employer. To relieve the family of the Government servant concerned
from financial destitution and to help the family get over the
unfortunate situation, the scheme for compassionate appointment
formulated by the State of Maharashtra provides that the appointment
can be made to one dependent legal heir of the deceased employee if
such application was made within the prescribed period. Under the
Government Resolution dated 31st December 2002, the period provided
for making an application for compassionate appointment was six
months and that period was enlarged in the coming years. In the year
2006, when his father died the petitioner was a toddler aged about four
B.D.Pandit-SPS
3 915-WP-17384-24.doc
years. About eighteen years thereafter, he submitted the application for
compassionate appointment which has now been dismissed. Before
him, the mother of the petitioner had made application for
compassionate appointment but there is nothing on record to
demonstrate that she was pursuing that application; atleast she never
approached the Court. This needs to be remembered that any claim for
compassionate appointment cannot be made by way of inheritence
(refer: State of Chattisgarh vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar , 2009 Mh.L.J.
Online (S.C.) 94 = (2009) 13 SCC 600). In " Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana" (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that the scheme for compassionate appointment is not a
vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Elucidating
the object behind compassionate appointment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court further observed that the object is not to give a member of the
bereaved family a post much less a post for post held by deceased
employee.
4. This is by now settled that only right of a dependent of the
deceased employee is that his application for compassionate
appointment is considered within the framework of the scheme
formulated by the employer and other applicable laws. In " N. C.
Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors. ", (2020) 7 SCC 617, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that a dependant of the government employee, in
the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the
government employee, can only demand consideration of his/ her
application for compassionate appointment. In " Union of India & Ors.
vs. M.T. Latheesh", (2006) 7 SCC 350, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general
rule, the appointment has to be made only in warranting situation, and
in granting appointment the guiding factors should be financial
B.D.Pandit-SPS
4 915-WP-17384-24.doc
condition of the family.
5. In "Amol Hiralal Telrandhe" (supra), on which the learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance, this Court held as
under:
"23. In Zile Singh (supra), wherein the provision of Haryana
Municipal Council Act, 1973, was in question whereby a
person having more than two children on or after the expiry of
one year of the commencement of the said Act is held deemed
to be disqualified. Though question before the Hon'ble Apex
Court challenging the retrospective effect of Harayana
Municipal Council Amendment Act in Section 3 and 15, the
observations made in the judgment in paragraph No.26 is
relied on. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"26. ..... However, the legislature thought that it would be
more reasonable if that is qualification was not applied by
reference to a child born within a period of one year from
the date of commencement of the Act. The period of one
year was appointed keeping in view the period of
gestation which is two hundred and eighty days as
incorporated in Section 112 of the Evidence Act of 1872
and added to it a little more margin of 85 days. The
provision spells out this meaning but for the error in
drafting. Even if there would have been no amendment
(as introduced by the second amendment Act) the proviso
as it originally stood, if subjected to judicial scrutiny,
would have been so interpreted and the word "after"
would have been read as "upto" or asigned that meaning
so as to carry out the legislative intent and not to make
B.D.Pandit-SPS
5 915-WP-17384-24.doc
capital out of the draftsman's folly. Or, the proviso- if not
read down- would have been declared void and struck
down as being arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as
the persons having more than two living children on the
date of enactment of the Act and within one year
thereafter and the persons having more than two living
children after the date of one year could not have formed
two classes capable of being distinguished on a well-
defined criterion so as to fulfill the purpose sought to be
achieved by the legislature."
"27. After going through the material made available by the
parties, which is based on various journals research and after
considering the various judgments and various similar provision
in other statute, there is no doubt that maximum period of one-
year is provided in almost all legislation and the persons having
third child during that period i.e. from the date of issuing
Notification, till further one year is protected. The only reason
for prescribing such a period of one year is to get the knowledge
of issuance of Notification to the person and to grant some
appropriate leeway. The cut-off date as prescribed in the
amendment provision grant exactly 9 months i.e. from issuance
of Government Resolution dated 28/03/2001 till 31/12/2001.
Thus the prescribed cut off date is erroneous and not based on
any discernible principle. Thus purpose of granting protection
itself is defeated."
6. The observations made in paragraph no. 23 of the decision of
the Full Bench of this Court in " Kalpana" (supra) must be read together
with other findings recorded by the Full Bench and the said
B.D.Pandit-SPS
6 915-WP-17384-24.doc
observations cannot be read in isolation. The appointment in "Amol
Hiralal Telrandhe" was declined on the ground that the applicant's
father had three children which was in contravention to Government
Resolution dated 21st September 2017. "Amol Hiralal Telrande" (supra)
refers to the decisions in Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC
1 and Javed vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 and pointed out
the draftsman's mistake. It is well remembered that the ratio of any
decision is an authority for what it actually decides. In Ambika Quarry
Works & Anr vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, (1987) 1 SCC 213, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 18 as under:-
"18.............The ratio of any decision must be understood in the
background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time
ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides,
and not what logically follows from it. [ See Lord Halsbury in
Quinn v. Leathem, (1901) AC 495]........."
7. Mr. Nilesh Wable, the learned counsel for the petitioner lastly
submitted that the matter may be referred to a larger Bench if this
Court does not agree to the ratio in "Kalpana" (supra). To this, we
would only indicate that this Court is alive to the principles of judicial
discipline and propriety and we accord our concurrence with the
decision in "Kalpana" (supra) which is clearly not attracted in the facts
of this case. The public employments must be in consonance with the
Constitutional mandate under Article 14 and Article 16 of the
Constitution of India and the only exception carved out would be the
cases where the widow or dependent children of the employee who
died in harness are provided compassionate appointment. It is now too
well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be granted so
many years after the employee died in harness. The passage of time
after the death becomes a reason to conclude that the family had tide
B.D.Pandit-SPS
7 915-WP-17384-24.doc
over the immediate crisis and, therefore, the appointment on
compassionate ground need not be given. In "Haryana State Electricity
Board & Anr. v. Hakim Singh" (1997) 8 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that the object of providing relief should not be taken as
opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. In
paragraph no.8 of the reportable judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under :-
"8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they
should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the
normal route through which one can get into a public
employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions,
there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have
been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such
exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a
deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependents
in a vacancy. The object is to give succor to the family which
has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely
death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time
and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief
should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of
recruitment to public employment".
8. Writ Petition No.17384 of 2024 is dismissed.
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] [SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.]
B.D.Pandit-SPS
