SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1001

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli) - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022
Decided on : 30-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raahul Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Ashok Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Riyaan Bhola, Adv. Mrs. Priti Jignesh Joshi, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Soni, adv. Mr. Vaibhav Dixit, Adv. Mr. Prabodh Kumar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment is an exception to general rule of appointment in public services and is in favour of dependants of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood.

Headnote:

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Appellant is married daughter of deceased employee – For all government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution – However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to said norms – Compassionate ground is a concession and not a right – Whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable family to tide over sudden crisis – Object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by deceased – To appoint respondent now on compassionate ground shall be contrary to object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground – Respondent cannot be said to be dependent on deceased employee (Her mother) – Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from death of deceased employee – Tribunal as well as High Court have committed serious error in directing appellants to appoint respondent on compassionate ground – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court dismissing writ petition and confirming order passed by Tribunal quashed and set aside. (Paras 6, 7, 7.1, 8 and 9)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 11614 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has confirmed the order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal directing to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground, State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department has preferred the present appeal.

Findings of Court:

The judgment and order passed by Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing appellants to consider case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years is unsustainable.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 11614 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has confirmed the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal) directing to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground, the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-

2.1 That the father of the respondent was in the clerical cadre serving with the appellants. He died in harness. After his death, his wife, i.e., mother of the respondent was appointed on compassionate ground. However, she died while in service. That thereafter the elder sister of the respondent namely Mrs. Sangita M. Thonge made application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected vide communication dated 18.08.2011 on the ground that she cannot be given the appointment on compassionate ground as she is a married daughter.

2.2 That thereafter the State Government issued a Government Circular dated 26.02.2013, according to which the employment was to be provided to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased government servant on compassionate grounds.

2.3 That thereafter the respondent, a married daughter of the deceased employee - Late Smt. Lata Maruti Vidhate applied for appointment on compassionate ground vide representation dated 12.03.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that respondent is the second married daughter and the application made by her elder married sister was already rejected earlier in the year 2011. The application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected vide order dated 23.04.2013.

2.4 The respondent filed O.A. No. 860 of 2015 before the Tribunal approximately after a period of two years from the rejection of her application for appointment on compassionate ground. The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 24.03.2017 allowed the said O.A. and directed to consider the respondent’s case for appointment on compassionate ground. The order passed by the Tribunal has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order, which is the subject matter of present appeal before this Court.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is:

    Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the respondent shall be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground?

4. The undisputed facts are that on the death of the deceased employee - father of the respondent, who died in harness, the mother of the respondent was given appointment on compassionate ground. The mother of the respondent died on 28.03.2006. That thereafter the elder married sister of the respondent made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, which came to be rejected in the year 2011 on the ground that being a married daughter, she cannot be said to be dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, she is not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. That after a period of seven years from the date of death of her mother, again, the respondent being the younger married daughter made an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2013. In light of the aforesaid facts, the question posed is required to be considered.

5. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, had occasion to


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top