Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and should be granted only in cases of destitution, with a need for immediate financial assistance for the family of the deceased employee.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep V. Marne, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of both the sides, the petition is taken up for fnal hearing.

2. The State of Maharashtra has fled the present Petition challenging judgment and order dated 9th May 2019 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ('Tribunal') partly allowing Original Application No.1091 of 2017 fled by Respondents seeking compassionate appointment. The Tribunal has directed consideration of Respondents' case for compassionate appointment.

3. Brief facts leading to fling of present Petition are that the husband of Respondent No.1 and father of Respondent No.2, Akbar Shaikh was working as Police Constable who died in harness on 5th July 2000. On 24th December 2004, an application was made for grant of compassionate appointment in favour of Smt. Sherifa, the eldest daughter of late Akbar Shaikh. Letter dated 8th November 2010 was issued to Sherifa calling her upon to remain present with original documents as few posts of junior clerks were proposed to be flled. Smt. Sherifa, however, did not act on the requisition and instead the mother made an application dated 6th December 2010 informing Petitioner that Smt. Sherifa was already married and the mother is dependent on her minor son Anis aged 15 years. The mother therefore requested to place the name of Anis on waiting list till he attained the age of 18 years. Anis made an application for compassionate appointment on 2nd March 2015 and by letter/order dated 10th March 2017, the application came to be rejected on the ground that it was not permissible to substitute the name in the waiting list. The said letter/order dated 10th March 2017 became the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the rejection, Respondents instituted Original Application No.1091 of 2017 before the Tribunal seeking compassionate appointment in favour of Anis by substituting his name in the place of Smt. Sherifa. By the judgment and order dated 9th May 2019, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the Original Application.

4. Appearing for Petitioners, Mr. Pabale the learned AGP would submit that compassionate appointment offered to Smt. Sherifa by letter dated 8th November 2010, she failed to accept the same. He would submit that Respondents cannot treat compassionate appointment as a matter of right by substituting the name of legal heirs of deceased. Relying on the Government Resolution dated 20th May 2015, Mr. Pabale would contend that substitution of name of legal heirs in the waiting list is prohibited except for the reason of death of legal heir. Mr. Pabale relies on Apex Court judgment in N.C. Santosh Versus State of Karnataka and ors (2020) 7 SCC 716.

5. Per contra, Mr. Kolge, the learned counsel for Respondents would oppose the Petition and support the order passed by the Tribunal. He would submit that the case of Respondents cannot be governed by the provisions of Government Resolution dated 20th May 2015. He would rely on provisions of Government Resolution dated 26th October 1994 which did not contain any prohibition on substitution of name of legal heirs. Mr. Kolge would submit that letter dated 8th November 2010 did not amount to an offer for compassionate appointment. He would submit that letter merely called upon Smt. Sharifa to produce documents. He would rely on the following judgments;

(i) Smt. Pushpabai Wd/o Rajesh Bisne Versus State of Maharashtra and ors. WP No.5944 of 2018 Judgment of this Court (bench at Nagpur) decided on 22nd July 2019.

(ii) Malaya Nanda Sethy Versus State of Orissa and others 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 522

(iii) State of Maharashtra and ors Versus Smt. Anusaya V. More and anr. WP No.13932 of 2017 judgment of this Court decided on 18th July, 2018

(iv) Dhulaji Shrimant Kharat Versus State of Maharashtra and ors. WP No.8771 of 2015 Judgment of this Court decided on 12th December 2018.

Mr. Kolge has also relied on some of the judgments passed by the Tribunal.

6. We have heard the learned