IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress and is not a vested right. The financial circumstances of the family and the lapse of time since the death of the government employee should be considered in determining eligibility for compassionate appointment.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-State seeks to challenge the order dated 23rd January 2020, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), whereby the Original Application (O.A.) No.863 of 2017 filed by the Respondents was allowed and the Petitioner-State were directed to consider the application for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. Narrative of Events:-

(i) On 6th September 2005, the husband of Respondent No.1, who was working as Class IV employee with the Petitioners died in harness. Within 8 months, i.e. on 17th May 2006, the Respondent No.1-wife of the deceased applied for appointment of her son, the Respondent No.2 on compassionate ground.

(ii) On 16th June 2006, the aforesaid application made by Respondent No.1-wife was rejected on the ground that her son was a minor. Therefore, on 31st August 2006, the Respondent No.1-wife made an application seeking appointment for herself on compassionate ground. The Respondent No.1-wife was put on waiting list at Serial No.50.

(iii) On 2nd June 2014, the Petitioners informed Respondent No.1-wife that her name from the waiting list is deleted since as per the Government Resolution issued on 22nd August 2005 on compassionate appointment, a dependent cannot be considered if the person has completed 40 years of age and the Respondent No.1 had completed 40 years of age on 5th October 2009.

(iv) On 19th May 2015, the Respondent No.1-wife made application to the Petitioners requesting to substitute Respondent No.2-her son in the waiting list and to consider him for appointment on compassionate ground. In the said letter, Respondent No.1 stated that the family has survived on wages after the death of her husband. The Respondent No.1 further stated in the said letter that Respondent No.2-her son is 23 years old and is an agricultural graduate and, therefore, her application for compassionate appointment of her son to be considered sympathetically.

(v) On 30th May 2015, the Petitioners informed Respondent No.1 that in the Government Resolution of 2005 dealing with the compassionate appointments, there is no provision for substitution of her son in place of her name in waiting list for compassionate appointment.

(vi) On 23rd August 2016, the Respondent No.1 once again requested the Petitioners to consider the Respondent No.2-her son on compassionate ground. The said letter is similar to her earlier letter dated 19th May 2015. In the said letter, she reiterated that Respondent No.2-her son is 23 years old and an agricultural graduate.

(vii) In September 2017, after almost 2 years of rejection the Respondents filed an O.A. with the Tribunal seeking quashing of communication dated 30th May 2015 and directing the Petitioners to consider the representation of the Respondent for compassionate appointment. The said application was numbered as O.A. No.863 of 2017.

(viii) On 23rd January 2020, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the Respondents quashing the communication dated 30th May 2015 and directing the Petitioner to consider the application of the Respondents for compassionate appointment of Respondent No.2-son.

(ix) It is on the above backdrop that the Petitioner-State have challenged the order passed by the Tribunal.

3. The Petitioner-State submitted that there is no provision in 2005 Government Resolution for substituting Respondent No.2 in place of Respondent No.1 for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The Petitioner-State further submitted that Respondent No.1 having reached age of 40 years, the Petitioners were justified in deleting her name as per the Government Resolution issued on 22nd August 2005. The Petitioner-State further submitted that the Respondents have survived from 2006 till today and, therefore, direction of the Tribunal to consider the Respondent No.2 for compassionate employment would be contrary to the objective of the scheme dealing with t