JUDGMENT :

S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. The Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby raising challenge to the Circular dated 05.01.2016 issued by the Respondent – MCGM as well as order dated 10.03.2021 rejecting Application of petitioner No. 02 seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The Petitioners are the widow and son of late Sanjay Padamalwar who was serving under the establishment of the Respondent – MCGM since 1988. However, he was medically invalidated w.e.f. 11.08.2018 at the age of 52 years.

3. The Petitioner No. 2, who is the son of Sanjay Padamalwar, submitted an Application seeking appointment on establishment of respondent-corporation on compassionate ground. However, the claim of the Petitioner No. 2 came to be rejected by the Respondent – MCGM under the communication dated 10.03.2021, stating that at the time of medical invalidation, Mr. Sanjay Padamalwar, had crossed 50 years of age. As per the Circular dated 05.01.2016, benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be made available to the family member of the employee, who was more than 50 years of age at the time of medical invalidation.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent – MCGM has a Scheme for providing compassionate appointment to the family member of the employee, who died in harness or suffered medical invalidation while in the service. As per the original Scheme, family member of the employee, who has suffered medical invalidation up to his age of 53 years were given benefit of compassionate appointment. However, claim of the Petitioner No. 2 is rejected giving reference to the impugned Circular dated 05.01.2016 which reduced age limit to 50 years from 53 years.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 issued by the State of Maharashtra provide for compassionate appointment to the family members of the employees died in harness without restriction of age of employee at the time of his death. In that view of the matter, the policy, as prescribed by respondents under the Circular dated 05.01.2016 is inconsistent to the policy of the State Government. He would further submit that there is no rational behind providing the age limit for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment in respect of medically invalidated employee. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there is no reason to discriminate between the family member of the employee, who died in harness and the employee medically invalidated, since suffering of family member in both the cases is similar in nature. In support of his contention, he relied on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

(i) Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union of India (Uoi) And Ors, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1976;

(ii) Chandrakant Sakharam Karkhanis vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors., reported in AIR 1977 Bom 193;

(iii) National Association of Blind vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner and Another decided by this Court dated 28.10.2020 in PIL-CJ-LD-VC-NO.45 OF 2020;

(iv) Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana, reported in 1994 SCC(4) 138;

(v) State of Chhatisgarh vs Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, reported in 2009(13) SCC 600;

(vi) V. Sivamurthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors decided on 12.08.2008 in Civil Appeal No. 4210 of 2003.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondent – MCGM would submit that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but purely at the discretion of the Competent Authority. He would submit that compassionate appointment can be given only in serious cases strictly in accordance with the Scheme / Policy of the employer. The Circular dated 05.01.2016 prescribes maximum age of 50 years in respect of medically invalidated employee for extending benefit of compassionate appointment to his family member. He submits that there is a valid object behind prescribing age criteria, since there is tendency on the part of the empl