JUDGMENT :

S.G. Dige, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.

2. By this Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.09.2018 passed by respondent No.2 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon thereby rejecting the proposal of petitioner being appointed on compassionate ground as Peon in respondent No.3 School and the petitioner is also seeking directions against respondent no.2 to grant approval in favour of petitioner as Peon being appointed on compassionate ground from the date of initial appointment i.e. 27.12.2014 and also to make the payment of salary from the date of initial appointment till today and also in future.

3. The undisputed factors are as under :

[a] The father of the petitioner - Sanjay Patil, was a ‘Senior Clerk’, working with respondent no. 3 - School;

[b] Father of the petitioner passed away on 17.12.2014;

[c] The petitioner applied for the post of ‘Peon’ on compassionate ground on 22.12.2014.

[d] Respondent no.3 - School by passing a Resolution on 25.12.2014 appointed the petitioner as Peon on 27.12.2014.

[e] The proposal of the petitioner was forwarded to respondent no.2 Education Officer by respondent no.3 - School on 10.02.2015.

[f] On 29.09.2018, respondent no.2 - Education Officer refused to accord approval to the compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the proposal seeking sanction to the new staffing pattern is pending with the Government and as yet no sanction is received from the Government.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned in the impugned order are not sustainable in the light of decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.4219/2018 [Smt. Yogita Shivsing Nikam Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others], Writ Petition No.163/2020 [Sachin Shivajirao Suryawanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others] and also in Writ Petition No.3342/2018 [Chandrakant Shantaram Bhoi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others].

5. It is the contention of the learned AGP that new staffing pattern has not been sanctioned by the State Government, therefore, approval cannot be granted to the petitioner as Peon.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find that issue involved in this petition is no longer res-integra and is covered by the decision / order of this Court in the case of Smt. Yogita Shivsing Nikam [supra]. While considering similar fact situation in para nos. 28, 29 and 30 of the order, this Court has observed thus :

“28. To say the least, we are shocked by the stand taken by the State Government, which is not only against logic and reason, but is in complete contradiction to the law crystallized by this court in numerous judgments. It is unconscionable for the State to canvass such grounds virtually rendering the bereaved family to starvation. We find that the State has consistently ensured that not a single Government Resolution, pertaining to ban on recruitment, stay on filling in vacant posts and prohibition on appointments until the staffing pattern of the non teaching posts is formalized, would apply to appointments made on compassionate grounds. This Court has also consistently taken a view that compassionate appointment would be an exception to the mandatory rule of following specific selection procedure for recruitment on vacant posts or on newly created posts.

29. We have noticed the agony caused to litigants in such cases. We, therefore, find it appropriate at this stage to record that after the delivery of this judgment, if any case refusing approval to a compassionate appointment which is otherwise legally sustainable satisfying the eligibility criteria, comes to this court, we would be issuing directions recommending strict disciplinary action against the Education Officer and we would not hesitate to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against persons responsible, since they are interpreting the Government Resolution