Bombay High Court
Raghunath Bhagwanrao Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 25 November, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:32789-DB
13385-25-WP.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.13385 OF 2025
Raghunath S/o.Bhagwanrao Shinde,
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o. Khanapur, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Agriculture, Animal Husbandry,
Dairy Development & Fishery
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai -32.
2. The Registrar,
Marathwada Agricultural University,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents.
......
Mr. Subhash S. Nade, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S.B. Dhaware, APP for Respondents - State
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATED : 25 NOVEMBER, 2025
ORDER [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to respondent No.2 to
appoint him to a Class-IV post on compassionate grounds. The claim is
founded upon the medical termination of the petitioner's father, who
served as a laborer initially with respondent No.2 and subsequently was
made permanent as a peon from 12.01.1984, until he was relieved from
services i.e. on 03.01.2007 on account of permanent medical unfitness.
13385-25-WP.odt
{2}
2. The factual backdrop is not in serious dispute. The petitioner's
father suffered from ischemic disease, which subsequently progressed
to gangrene. He remained on medical leave from 03.03.2005. On
02.01.2007, the Medical Board concluded that he was permanently
unfit to continue his duties. Consequently, respondent No.2 relieved him
from service with effect from 03.01.2007 under Rule 80 of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The grievance of the
petitioner is twofold. First, it is urged that the petitioner's father ought
not to have been relieved without being afforded an opportunity of
being considered for an alternative post, as contemplated under Section
47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act of 1995'). Secondly, the petitioner contains that as the son of a
medically invalidated employee, he is entitled to a compassionate
appointment under the Act of 1995 and under the Compassionate
Appointment Scheme earlier in operation.
3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in writ petition
No. 11025 of 2010, wherein a direction was issued on 30.07.2012 to
the respondents to decide his representation. Pursuant thereto, the
petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 19.10.2012. Respondent
No.2 thereafter rejected the request by communication, inter alia
13385-25-WP.odt
{3}
holding that the compassionate appointment policy then in force,
particularly the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2005, did not
contain any provision regarding compassionate appointment to
dependents of medically terminated employees.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner strenuously contended
that the impugned rejection is contrary to Section 47 of the Act of 1995
and the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v.
Union of India and another, (2003) 4 SCC 524. It was argued that once
the petitioner's father suffered from a disability, respondent No.2 was
bound to protect his employment by placing him in an alternative post,
and failure to do so would automatically entitle the petitioner to seek
compassionate appointment.
5. Per contra, the learned AGP submitted that compassionate
appointment is confined to dependents of employees who die in
harness, unless the relevant service rules provide otherwise. It was
argued that the Act of 1995 does not create any right for legal heirs of
disabled employees to be appointed in the service of the State. Reliance
was placed on the settled principle that compassionate appointment is
not a vested right but a concession governed strictly by the applicable
schemes.
13385-25-WP.odt
{4}
6. We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as
the learned AGP, and have also perused the impugned communication
of respondent No.2, thereby rejecting the petitioner's representation and
refusing to grant him employment in the Class-IV category in the place
of his father, who was medically declared unfit and hence was
terminated from services. In order to analyze the correctness and
legality of the decision made by respondent No.2 while rejecting the
representation of the petitioner, it is necessary to analyze the legal
position pertaining to the appointments to be made on compassionate
ground. It is also necessary to analyze the arguments of the learned
advocate for the petitioner pertaining to the provisions of the Act of
1995.
7. Section 47 mandates that no establishment shall dispense with
or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during service,
such an employee shall be shifted to a suitable post with the same pay
and benefits. In Kunal Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasized the mandatory character of the provision and held that an
employee could not be discharged solely due to the disability. However,
it is equally well settled that Section 47 protects the employee, not his
legal heirs. It creates no derivative right in favor of the dependents for
public employment. The protection is personal to the employee and
13385-25-WP.odt
{5}
meant to ensure continuity of service during disability. The petitioner's
father did not challenge his medical termination, nor is the present
petition an action for setting aside that termination. The claim before us
is solely for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Such a claim
cannot be founded on Section 47 of the Act of 1995 as contended by the
petitioner. More importantly, Kunal Singh (supra) does not lay down
that where there is at least breach of Section 47, the legal heir becomes
entitled for compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is
governed exclusively by relevant schemes, Section 47 does not enlarge
those schemes.
8. As far as the legal position in respect of the appointments to be
made on compassionate ground is concerned, it has been held in a
catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that compassionate
appointment is a narrow exception to the general rule of public
employment under Article 14 and 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
reiterated this principle in several decisions such as Umesh Kumar
Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others , (1994) 4 SCC 138, State Bank of
India and another v. Rajkumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 and N.C. Santosh v.
State of Karnataka and others, (2020) 7 SCC 617.
9. Thus, from the aforesaid line of judgments, it can be held that
an appointment on compassionate ground is not a vested right, but it is
13385-25-WP.odt
{6}
a concession to relieve the immediate hardship of a family on the death
or incapacitation of a breadwinner. Thus, it is required that it must be
strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and Courts cannot
direct appointment contrary to or in absence of such schemes.
10. The compassionate appointments scheme in Maharashtra, as it
stands post-2005, restricts eligibility to dependents of employees who
die while in service. The Government Resolution dated 22.08.2005
earlier permitted appointment to dependents of employees who suffer
cancer or who were disabled due to an accident. However, that
provision was later withdrawn. The contention of the respondents,
therefore, that no policy existed at the relevant time permitting
compassionate appointment to dependents of medically terminated
employees, holds substance.
11. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on
the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government
vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as
mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However,
appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a
deceased employee is an exception to the said norms compassionate
ground is a concession and not a right.
13385-25-WP.odt
{7}
12. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi
Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had an occasion to
consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate
ground and considered the decision of this Court in the case of Govind
Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in paras 21 and
26, it is observed and held as under-
"21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind
Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been
considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before
we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that
the nature of compassionate appointment had been
considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State
of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana.
(1994) 4 SCC 138] The principles which have been laid
down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been
subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents
in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the
following extract (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138],
SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)
"2. ... As a rule, appointments in the public
services should be made strictly on the basis of
open invitation of applications and merit. No
other mode of appointment nor any other
consideration is permissible. Neither the
Governments nor the public authorities are at
liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the
13385-25-WP.odt
{8}
qualifications laid down by the rules for the post
However, to this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case, there are some
exceptions carved out in the interests of justice
and to meet certain contingencies. One such
exception is in favour of the dependents of an
employee dying in harness and leaving his family
in penury and without any means of livelihood. In
such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact
that unless some source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful employment to one of the dependents of
the deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is
not to give a member of such family a post much
less a post for post held by the deceased. What is
further, mere death of an employee in harness
does not entitle his family to such source of
livelihood. The Government or the public
authority concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased, and it is
only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet
the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible
member of the family The posts in Classes III and
IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual
categories and hence they alone can be offered on
compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve
the family. of the financial destitution and to help
it get over the emergency. The provision of
employment in such lowest posts by making an
exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since
it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment
given to such dependent of the deceased
13385-25-WP.odt
{9}
employee in such posts has a rational nexus with
the object sought to be achieved viz relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or
required to be given by the public authorities for
the purpose. It must be remembered in this
connection that as against the destitute family of
the deceased there are millions of other families
which are equally, if not more destitute. The
exception to the rule made in favour of the family
of the deceased employee is in consideration of
the services rendered by him and the legitimate
expectations, and the change in the status and
affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile
employment which are suddenly upturned."
"26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz
Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384]
has adopted the principle that appointment on
compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but
a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a
sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family
would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions
contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash
Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289:
2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the
Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier
binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in
that case."
13. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general
rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the
13385-25-WP.odt
{10}
dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in
penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of
pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that
unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be
able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may
be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over
the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less
a post held by the deceased.
14. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the petitioner now
on compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate ground.
15. Thus, from the above analysis, we are of the considered view
that Section 47 of the Act of 1995, protects only the employees and it
does not create any right in favor of his legal heirs to demand
compassionate appointment. It is also further observed that at the
relevant time, there existed no government resolution or statutory rule
entitling the dependents of a medically terminated employees to be
appointed on compassionate ground in service. The compassionate
13385-25-WP.odt
{11}
appointment is an exception and must be strictly governed by the
scheme. This Court cannot direct appointment outside the four corners
of the policy. Thus, the impugned rejection order shows due
consideration of the petitioner's case and cites the correct reason and
non-availability of a policy permitting such appointments. The order
does not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality.
16. In light of aforesaid findings, no mandamus can be issued
compelling the respondents to appoint the petitioner. Hence, the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane
