Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Rohit B.Deo, V.V.Joshi, JJ.
Musaddique Ahmad Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3227 of 2022
Decided On : 19-04-2023
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - EMPLOYMENT LAW - Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Government Resolution dtd. 28/3/2001 - The court discussed the constitutional validity of a government resolution that disqualifies families with more than two children from receiving compassionate appointments. It interpreted Article 14, emphasizing that the policy aims to control population growth and does not violate equal opportunity principles. The court upheld the resolution, stating it serves a legitimate purpose and is not arbitrary, thus influencing its decision to dismiss the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, son of a deceased government employee, sought compassionate appointment after his father's death. His application was rejected based on a government resolution that disqualified families with more than two children from such benefits, which the petitioner argued was unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government resolution was a valid policy aimed at population control and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It aligned with a previous decision that upheld similar conditions, concluding that the rejection of the petitioner's application was neither arbitrary nor illegal.
Issues: Whether the government resolution disqualifying families with more than two children from compassionate appointments is unconstitutional and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government has the authority to impose reasonable conditions for compassionate appointments, and the resolution serves a legitimate purpose of population control. The policy does not violate the principles of equality under Article 14, as compassionate appointments are not a right but an exception to general recruitment rules.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the government resolution and the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
R.B.DEO, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner is the son, and one of the legal heirs of Mr. Muqaddar Khan Mumtaz Khan who was working as Assistant Teacher at Urdu Primary School, Pathrot, Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati, and who died in harness on 2/9/2015.
3. Petitioner's mother Mrs. Nusrat Afroz submitted application dtd. 5/1/2016 requesting the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Amravati to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Request was reiterated vide application dtd. 24/1/2017, which the Education Officer (Primary) forwarded to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer.
4. The petitioner's mother addressed follow up communications dtd. 8/7/2019 and 29/8/2019, pursuant to which the petitioner was asked to submit certain documents inter alia the birth certificates of the children born from the wedlock between Mrs. Nusrat Afroz and the deceased employee. The petitioner was also heard and by order dtd. 25/6/2020, the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected, in view of the Government Resolution dtd. 31/12/2001 which provides that if a third child is born to the employee after 31/12/2001, the family shall not be entitled to the benefit of the appointment on compassionate grounds scheme. The petitioner is assailing the order dtd. 25/6/2020 issued by respondent 3-Chief Executive Officer and Clause-E of the Government Resolution dtd. 28/3/2001, on the premise that the said clause is unconstitutional and falls foul of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Raheel Mirza, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Mrs. Ketki Joshi and the learned Counsel for respondent 3-Zilla Parishad Mr. S.A. Mohta.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents would invite our attention to the decision dtd. 8/3/2022 of the Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition 6819/2021 (Bhagyashree Pradeep Chopade v. MIDC and others) to buttress the submission that the issue is not res integra.
7. In view of the submission that the issue is covered, it would be necessary to note the facts which fell for consideration in Bhagyashree Pradeep Chopade v. MIDC and others. Mr. Pradeep Chopade died in harness on 14/10/2013 leaving behind him his widow, three daughters and son. One of the daughters Bhagyashree applied for appointment on compassionate grounds without disclosing that she has a younger sibling Atharva. The employer-MIDC learnt from enquries that Atharva was born on 18/7/2008, and relying on the Government Resolution dtd. 28/3/2001, Bhagyashree's application seeking appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected.
8. The Coordinate Bench considered the Government Resolution dtd. 28/3/2001, which is the Government Resolution on the basis of which the petitioner herein is denied employment, thus :-
The court established that conditions imposed for compassionate appointments can be justified if they serve a legitimate purpose, such as population control, and do not violate constitutional princip....
Compassionate appointment -Under no circumstances, the second wife nor her children are eligible for compassionate grounds appointment, if the marriage has taken place during the subsistence of the f....
Children born of void marriages are entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment, as denying them this right violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
(1) Compassionate Appointment – Descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under scheme of compassionate appointments.(2) Compassionate Appointment – Appellant cannot be denied consideration u....
Children from void second marriage, deemed legitimate under Section 16 HMA, cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment by employer policy, as it violates Article 14 equality; must be considere....
Compassionate appointments cannot discriminate based on gender; excluding married daughters violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16.
Compassionate appointment cannot be denied based on descent; the policy must comply with Article 14 of the Constitution.
Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, affirming that marriage does not sever familial ties for employment eligibility.
Married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointment on par with sons, as marital status does not negate their familial ties or dependency.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
