[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Hrishikesh S/O. Arun Game vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... on 4 February, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:1835-DB
wp 724-2025.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 724 OF 2025
Hrushikesh s/o Arun Game
Aged about 25 years.
Occupation: Nil.
R/O Plot No. 53-A
Ramna Maroti Road
Near NIT Ground, Nagpur
Tq. & Dist. Nagpur 440 024
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
General Admn Department
New Administrative Building
Civil Line Nagpur -440 001
2. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai - 400 032.
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.A. Kothale, Advocate for petitioner
Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.1
Ms M.S. Naik, AGP for respondent/State
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wp 724-2025.odt 2/8
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 30.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.02.2026
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
3. The present petition challenges the decision/communication
dated 22.07.2024, by which the respondent No.1 has rejected the
claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The facts as
can be seen from the petition are stated in a narrow compass and
are as under:
The father of the petitioner, namely, Arun Rambhau Game,
was working on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Secondary
School run by the respondent No.1, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, from
the year 1992, till his untimely death on 05.05.2024, while
rendering service. It can also be seen from the petition that his
mother is also in service as a primary school teacher in Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. After the death of the father of the petitioner, he applied to
the respondent for compassionate appointment in the prescribed
format, and ultimately, the said request was rejected vide order
dated 22.07.2024, which is impugned in the present petition.
5. We have heard Shri V.A. Kothale, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, and also Shri G.G. Mishra, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1, and Ms M.S. Naik, Assistant Government Pleader
for respondent No.2/State.
6. Shri Kothale, learned Counsel for the petitioner, primarily
raises a ground that the impugned order is contrary to the policy of
the compassionate appointment as spelt out in the Government
Resolution dated 21.09.2017. It is his submission that the
respondent No.1 did not make any enquiry about financial
capability of the family of the petitioner and only considered the
employment of his mother as a hurdle for granting the
compassionate appointment. He further submits that the claim for
compassionate appointment has to be independently assessed in
terms of the Government Resolution, and more particularly, Clause
5 thereof. By taking us through the record and 3 rd Sub-clause of
Clause 5, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a
meaningful reading of the said clause would reveal that it
contemplates an enquiry to be conducted. The respondent, having
omitted to do so, cannot be said to have properly assessed the
situation in hand. It is therefore his submission that the claim is
improperly rejected and prays for the quashing of the rejection.
7. Per Contra, learned Counsel Shri Mishra for the respondent
No.1 submits that the mother of the petitioner is receiving a
monthly pension and has also received a lump-sum amount
towards the death cum retirement gratuity of the deceased father.
He further submits that the petitioner is the nominee of the mother
for all retirement benefits and therefore cannot be said to be having
any financial hardship. It is therefore his submission that the
proposal of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is rightly
rejected. He relied on a judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
290, Canara Bank versus Ajitkumar G.K.
8. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the
learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the Government
Resolution dated 21.09.2017, which is a policy for compassionate
appointment in such cases. Clause 5 of the said Government
Resolution speaks about the precarious condition of the family. Sub
Clause 3 of the said clause provides for a contingency that if a
relative of the deceased employee is in service but is not providing
succor to the other members, utmost care has to be taken by the
Competent Authority while assessing the financial capability of the
family. The said provision also contemplates that this is with the
intention that the scheme for compassionate appointment is not to
be misused. If the impugned communication is tested on the anvil
of the above-referred communication, the only reason for rejecting
the said communication is that the mother of the petitioner, namely,
Sangeeta Arun Game, and widow of the deceased Arun Game, is
serving as a school teacher in Zilla Parishad School. The impugned
communication, therefore, records that the object of compassionate
appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family, and then
goes on to reject the claim.
9. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the aim
of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to
the family. In paragraph No. 29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after
taking into consideration the entire case law, relating to
compassionate appointment has recorded that the underlying idea
behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases
appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of
the employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves
the family members in such penurious condition that but for an
appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive.
Thus, it is only in "hand-to-mouth" cases that a claim for
compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if
at all other conditions are satisfied.
10. There can be no dispute about this proposition. However, in
the present case, as stated supra, the only reason for rejecting the
proposal for compassionate appointment seems to be the fact of the
wife of the deceased employee being in service. However, what is
absent in the impugned communication is any enquiry done by the
Competent Authority in that regard, regarding the fact that
whether the mother of the petitioner is, in fact, maintaining the
petitioner. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that after the
rejection of his claim on 22.07.2024, the petitioner has made a
representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur, i.e., respondent No.1, to reconsider the rejection.
Admittedly, the said representation is still pending with the
respondent. It would be therefore, in the fitness of things to direct
the respondent No.1 to reconsider the rejection in the order dated
22.07.2024, and consider the representation dated 24.12.2024,
made by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we pass the
following order:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The letter/communication dated 22.07.2024, passed by the
respondent No.1, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, is quashed and set aside.
iii) The respondent No.1 is further directed to consider the
representation made by the petitioner on 24.12.2024, in light of the
Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017, and/or any other policy
governing compassionate appointment, applicable to the
respondents.
iv) The petitioner to appear before the Zilla Parishad/respondent
No.1 on 06.02.2026 and to apprise the respondent No.1 of this
order.
11. The petition is disposed of as such.
12. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Jayashree..
