Point of Law: Service Law – Entitlement of compassionate appointment - Deceased father an ad-hoc promotee to a Group B post and whose promotion was never confirmed petitioner entitled for appointment

JUDGMENT :

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. The moot question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is as to whether the petitioner could maintain an application for appointment on compassionate ground, when his deceased father was an ad-hoc promotee to a Group B post and whose promotion was never confirmed.

2. The assail as mounted in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 25 June, 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the tribunal’) whereby the petitioner’s Original Application No. 70 of 2018 was rejected by the tribunal, confirming an order dated 13 November 2017 passed by respondent no. 3-Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, on a post falling under Class-III.

3. We note the relevant facts:

In the year 1985, petitioner’s father Maruti Ganpat Gosarade (for short ‘late Maruti’) entered State Government service, as a Clerk in the Office of District Collector at Sangli. As stated before the tribunal, his entire service tenure was unblemished. By an order dated 11 June 2013, issued in favour of late Maruti, he was granted an ad-hoc promotion to the post of Election Naib Tahsildar (a Group B post) and was so posted at Mangalweda, District Solapur. On 7 December 2016, Maruti expired in harness, in an accident. A certificate was also issued by the Tehsil office, Mangalweda on 2 January, 2017, certifying that late Maruti-Election Naib Tahsildar, expired while on duty.

4. Late Maruti left behind him, his legal heirs Smt. Shobha Maruti Gosarade, wife (widow), Mr. Nikhil Maruti Gosarade, son (petitioner) and Sou. Nivedita Sachin Rajmane, (married daughter). As a consequence of the sudden death of the sole breadwinner, late Maruti’s family was left in a financial crisis, affecting their very livelihood. In an attempt to tide over such crisis, the petitioner being the only family member who could take up an employment, submitted an application dated 22 December, 2016 with the respondents for compassionate appointment on the post of “a Clerk” in the office of respondent no. 2. Such application was made on 23 December, 2016. Another dated 28 December, 2016, was submitted by him in the office of respondent no. 3-Divisional Commissioner (Revenue Camp) at Pune. Such application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner without delay and/or immediately after the death of his late father Maruti. Respondent no. 3, however, by a communication dated 20 January, 2017, rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, recording that as his late father was promoted as ‘Election Naib Tahsildar’, which was on a Group ‘B’ post, as held by him at the time of his death, the petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment. The reason being, such appointment cannot be made when the employees who belong to Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ die in harness.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by such decision of respondent no. 3 approached the tribunal in Original Application no. 574 of 2017. The tribunal by an order dated 18 September 2017 disposed of the said proceedings, whereby it quashed respondent no. 3’s order dated 20 January, 2017, rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment and issued directions to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision of Division Bench of the tribunal in the case of Shri Abhijeet Vishwas Mulik vs. The District Collector dated 18 February, 2015 delivered in Original Application No. 1093 of 2012. The petitioner thereafter made further representations dated 6 October, 2017, 14 October, 2017 and 16 October, 2017 also enclosing therewith a copy of the tribunal’s order.

6. By a fresh order dated 13 November, 2017 passed by respondent no. 3, again petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment came to be rejected primarily on the same ground, namely, that the petitioner’s father at the time of his death was holding the post of Electi