Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Arun R. Pedneker, JJ.
Vivek, S/o. Prakash Garge - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondents
Writ Petition No.8187 Of 2022
Decided On : 06-10-2022
Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility Criteria - Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007, 2019 - Rule 7, Rule 10
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an impugned communication and declared certain guidelines violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner's father was a permanent employee at the Yawal Court and died in service. The petitioner, a minor at the time, sought compassionate appointment after attaining adulthood. The petitioner's application was rejected, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment based on the amended Rules of 2019 and a previous judgment. The financial condition of the petitioner's family was precarious, and the petitioner's application was within the prescribed time limit. The court held that the amended Rules applied to the petitioner's case, and he was eligible for compassionate appointment.
Issues: The main issues were the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment under the 2007 and 2019 guidelines, the time limit for making a request for compassionate appointment, and the applicability of amended rules to pending cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the eligibility criteria and time limit for compassionate appointment under the 2007 and 2019 guidelines. It also considered the applicability of amended rules to pending cases and the financial condition of the petitioner's family.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to enlist the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates for compassionate appointment.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clause A & B as under :-
"A. For a writ of certiorari order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the record and proceedings of impugned communication dated 07.06.2022 issued by respondent No.3 (Exhibit C) may kindly be called and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, the impugned communication dated 07.06.2022 issued by respondent No.3 (Exhibit C) may kindly be quashed and set aside by allowing the application in toto.
B. Clause-7(a) and Clause 10 of the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for appointment on compassionate ground, 2007 may kindly be declared violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
The petitioner does not press prayer clause 'B'.
3. Having considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides on 13.09.2022, 16.09.2022, 03.10.2022 and today, we find that certain dates and events need mention as under :-
[a] The petitioner's father Prakash was in service at the Yawal Court as a Bailiff.
[b] He was a permanent employee.
[c] He died due to a heart attack on 05.08.2008 when he was in service.
[d] The petitioner was around 9 years of age at the relevant time, his date of birth being 02.09.1999.
[e] The widow i.e. the mother of the petitioner, made an application for compassionate appointment on 16.08.2008.
[f] Her application was rejected on 15.07.2009. She had taken education only upto the 1st standard.
[g] The petitioner attained adulthood on 02.09.2017 (18 years of age).
[h] He moved his application on 12/10/2017 seeking compassionate appointment, which was rejected on 10.05.2019, after 19 months.
[i] He preferred a review application on 03.01.2020. The review application was rejected on 31.05.2022, after 17 months.
4. In the above backdrop, the petitioner has relied upon the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007, wherein Rule 7 reads thus :-
"7. Eligibility :-
The Scheme shall apply only if :-
[a] The family deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and
[b] Applicant for compassionate appointment is eligible and suitable for the post in all respect under the provisions of relevant Recruitment Rules.
[c] The total monthly income of such family is less than the total emoluments of Group "C" employee of the lowest rank."
5. The above stated guidelines were revised vide the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for appointment on Compassionate Ground, 2019. The amended Rule 7 with regard to Eligibility reads as under :-
"7. Eligibility :-
The Scheme shall apply only if :-
[a] The family deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution ; however, an application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering the request for appointment on compassionate ground, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account is assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes) and all other relevant factors, such as, presence of an earning member, size of the family, age of the children and the essential needs of the family etc.
[b] Applicant for compassionate appointment is eligible and suitable for the post in all respect under the provisions of relevant Recruitment Rules." (Emphasis supplied)
6. The amended Rule 10 which prescribes limitation for making a request for compassionate appointment, reads as under :-
"Application for appointment on compassionate ground shall be made within one year of death of the employee in harness. However, in a suitable case, the Chief Justice may consider request for compassionate appointment made after 1 year upto 2 years after the death of the empl
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amended Rules of 2019 applied to pending cases, and the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment based on the financial condi....
Compassionate appointment applications must be submitted within one year of the employee's death, with strict adherence to guidelines to ensure timely relief for families in financial distress.
Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a legal right, and requires compliance with specific provisions while emphasizing immediate application to demonstrate need.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not a right, and should be made strictly in accordance with the rules. Long delays can lead to the rejection of compassionate appointments.
The policy for compassionate appointment must evaluate criteria based on circumstances at the time of the employee's death, not subsequent income limits.
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
