Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and is not a matter of right. The financial condition of the family and the employment status of family members are crucial factors to be considered while granting compassionate appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Vrushali V. Joshi, J.

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.404 of 2021. This is the fourth round of litigation. In all three rounds of litigations were before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the orders were passed in favour of the respondent No.1. The petitioners have not challenged the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal. The direction was given to the petitioners in all the three petitions before the Tribunal to consider the respondent for compassionate appointment. The petitioner had considered the case of the respondent on merits and rejected his candidature. Thereafter, the direction was given in Original Application No.404 of 2021 to provide employment to the respondent on compassionate ground within a period of one month. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The respondent is the son of Subhashrao Bhende. Subhashrao Bhende died on 19.11.2002 in harness. He was working as Police Constable. At that time, the respondent was nine years of age, he was minor. The mother of the respondent has applied for an employment on compassionate ground on 04.01.2003. The name of the mother of the respondent was taken on the waiting list. Thereafter, the respondent applied on 05.07.2011, after the respondent attained the majority for substitution of his name in place of name of his mother. The name of the respondent was substituted. Though the name of the respondent was substituted, it was informed to the respondent that there is no provision of substitution and therefore, he has filed the Original Application bearing No. 382 of 2013 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has directed the petitioner No.2 herein to consider the name of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground on it’s own merits. The name of the respondent was not considered on the ground that the family is having one acre agricultural land and their financial condition is sound. The order passed on 04.07.2017 was again challenged by filing the Original Application No.952 of 2017. The Tribunal has allowed the Original Application and direction was given to the petitioner No.2 herein to consider the case of the respondent herein as per his seniority in the waiting list for appointment on compassionate ground. Again, petitioner No.2. has not considered the candidature of the respondent and informed the respondent that his family has received the gratuity and having one acre agricultural land and therefore his family is having sound financial condition and therefore, again the respondent has approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the said order.

5. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by passing the remarks that only to disobey the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners are not intentionally providing the service and committing the breach of order of the Tribunal directed to give the employment to the respondent on compassionate ground within a period of one month.

6. The learned AGP appearing for the petitioners has stated that the mother of the respondent vide letter dated 12.11.2011 requested the petitioner No.2- department to include the name of her son in class-III category in the seniority list of candidate. Inadvertently, her application was accepted and name of the respondent was included in the waiting list. However, as per directives given in the GR dated 22.08.2005, the candidates who have completed 40 years of age, their names shall be deleted from the seniority list. In view of this, the name of respondent’s mother was deleted on completion of her 40 years of age and it was informed to the mother of the respondent that her name is deleted and there is no provi