Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
SUPRIYA SURESH PATIL @ SOW SUPRIYA PRATIK KADAM - Appellants
Vs.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5216 OF 2018
Decided On : 12-05-2018
Compassionate Appointment - Rejection based on family survival duration - The court ordered compassionate appointment for the daughter of the widow, emphasizing that the family's ability to survive for over ten years should not be the sole reason for rejection, and other considerations such as begging or borrowing should also be taken into account.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's application for compassionate appointment was declined by Respondent No. 3, and the High Court upheld the decision based on the family's ability to survive for over ten years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection based solely on the family's survival duration was not justified and ordered compassionate appointment for the daughter of the widow.
Issues: The rejection of the appellant's application for compassionate appointment and the consideration of family survival duration as the main reason for rejection.
Ratio Decidendi: The family's ability to survive for over ten years should not be the sole reason for rejecting a compassionate appointment, and other factors such as begging or borrowing should also be considered.
Final Decision: The court ordered compassionate appointment for the daughter of the widow and clarified that the order was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice.
JUDGMENT :
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved since her application for compassionate appointment was declined by Respondent No. 3. The appellant was unsuccessful before the High Court.
3. We find from the Judgment of the High Court that the main reason for rejecting the case of the appellant was that the family had managed to survive for over ten years and, therefore, there was no immediate necessity. We are afraid that this cannot be a major reason for rejection. Whether the family pulled on begging or borrowing also should have been one consideration. We do not propose to deal with the matter any further in the peculiar facts of this case. The widow had already been empaneled for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, but was declined the benefit only on account of crossing the age. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts of this case, her daughter should be considered for compassionate appointment. Ordered accordingly.
4. We make it clear that this order is passed in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice and hence, it may not be treated as a precedent.
5. The needful shall be done by the respondents within one month from today.
6. The impugned Judgment will stand modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of as above.
No costs.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
