SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rohit B.Deo, Y.G.Khobragade, JJ.
Nishadraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5152 of 2022
Decided On : 21-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
G.N.Khanzode, Advocate, Kalyani Deshpande, Advocate, M.A.Sable, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the submission of an application for compassionate appointment within the prescribed time limit, as per the Government Resolution, is crucial for justifiability of the claim.

Headnote:

Compassionate Appointment - Government Resolution - Clause 10(a) of Schedule-A, Government Resolution dtd. 21/09/2017 - Late Ankush Sawant, the father of the petitioner, died while in service. The mother of the petitioner submitted an application for grant of employment on compassionate ground within one year of the death. The court held that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground was not justifiable and quashed the order.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought issuance of a writ order against respondent No.2 to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father, a permanent employee. The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim was challenged.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mother of the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of employment on compassionate ground within one year of the death of the petitioner's father. The court held that the impugned order was not justifiable and quashed the order.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground was justifiable under the Government Resolution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Clause 10(a) of Schedule-A of the Government Resolution dtd. 21/09/2017, which required the submission of an application within a specified time frame. The court held that the petitioner's mother had submitted the application within the prescribed time limit, and therefore, the impugned order was not justifiable.

Final Decision: The impugned communication issued by respondent No.2 was quashed and set aside, and respondent No.2 was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis.

JUDGMENT

Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writ order or direction against respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 22/04/2022 issued by respondent No.2.

3. It is an admitted fact that Late Ankush Dharma Sawant, the father of the petitioner was working as a Center Head with respondent No.3, which comes under the control and administration of respondent No.2. However, on 04./04/2016, he died while he was in service. Thereafter, on 07/02/2017 the mother of the petitioner submitted an application with respondent No.2 for giving an appointment on compassionate ground to her son i.e. the petitioner. On 09/01/2018, the mother of the petitioner and widow of deceased Ankush died. After intimating the sad demise of the mother of the petitioner to respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide letter dtd. 31/07/2020, the petitioner was called upon to submit the documents as per Schedule-B. The petitioner submitted the said documents to respondent No.2 vide application dtd. 29/03/2022. However, on 22/04/2022, respondent No.2 issued impugned communication and informed the petitioner that his claim for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected on the count that the petitioner should have approached respondent No.2 with application and relevant documents within one year from the date of attaining the age of majority.

4. Though the learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1 and learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 resisted the petition, they did not file their replies in spite of granting sufficient time.

5. In the case in hand, it prima facie appears that Late Ankush Sawant the father of the petitioner, who was permanent employee of respondent No.3, which comes under the control and administration of respondent No.2, died while in service on 04/04/2016. The State Government issued Government Resolution dtd. 21/09/2017 and framed a scheme for providing appointment on compassionate ground in respect of Class-III and Class-IV employees, if the employee dies during his service tenure. The respondents have not denied the fact that Late Ankush Sawant, the father of the petitioner died during his service tenure. It is also not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner and the widow of deceased employee submitted an application for grant of employment on compassionate ground on 07/02/2017 to the respondents. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that as per Clause 10(a) of Schedule-A of the Government Resolution dtd. 21/09/2017, the family member of the deceased employee should have submitted an application within a period of one year and as per Clause 10(a)(a), the legal heir of the deceased employee could have applied within a period of one year from the date of attaining the age of majority. However, in the case in hand, it appears that the deceased employee Shri Ankush Dharma Sawant, the father of the petitioner, died on 04/04/2016 while in service and soon thereafter within a period of one year, the mother of the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on 07/02/2017. Therefore, it appears that the mother of the petitioner had submitted an application within a period of one year from the death of her husband as per Clause 10(a) of Schedule-A provided under the Government Resolution dtd. 21/09/2017.

6. The record speaks that respondent No.3 vide communication dtd. 16/02/2017 forwarded the said application along with the proposal for consideration of the claim of petitioner to respondent No.2. But, subsequently the mother of the petitioner died on 09/01/2018 and said fact of the sad demise of the petitioner's mother was intimated to the res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top