2024:BHC-NAG:11481-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6054 OF 2024 Lina Vishwanath Yerme, Age 35 years, Occupation – Assistant Teacher, R/o C/o. Shivaji High School, Chamorshi, Tahsil – Chamorshi, District – Gadchiroli. …. PETITIONER VERSUS

1) The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2) The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

3) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.

4) The Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Amravati Division Board, Amravati, through its Divisional Secretary and Enquiry Officer.

5) Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Gadchiroli, through its President.

6) Shivaji High School Chamorshi, Tahsil – Chamorshi, District – Gadchiroli, through its Headmaster …. RESPONDENTS ______________________________________________________________

Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.V. Palshikar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

______________________________________________________________

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 11 ^th OCTOBER, 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Swapanali Shekhar Kalbhor and another V. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.7797/2014) dated 11-10-2017 to which one of us (Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.) was a party, has taken a specific view that a hyper- technical view and rather unfair reading of the policy and refusing its implementation, to assist the dependents of the deceased, has resulted in wastage of valuable and precious judicial time, which we could have been devoted to other matters and particularly concerning the life and liberty of citizens. We concluded that the policy for compassionate appointment should be read fairly and reasonably and holding that it is possible to give it a reasonable, fair and just interpretation, by holding that it does not exclude or rule out the claim of a party like the petitioner, namely, the married sister of the deceased employee, where the deceased was unmarried or not survived by such family member who is eligible for being considered for employment or has none except a married sister, then such married sister in the family cannot be excluded from the scheme of compassionate employment, as the deceased was not married and the rule was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c) with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner No.1, if found to be eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground with the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.

3. Despite a detailed and an exhaustive judgment running into 34 pages, what we have noted is yet another petitioner has been made to suffer, on the account of erroneous interpretation of the policy decision of the State Government, which is infact initiated to offer solace to the members of the family of the deceased, who seek appointment on compassionate ground.

The petitioner is a married sister of the deceased employee who was working with respondent No.6 and upon his demise, she was appointed on compassionate ground with respondent No.6 and the Education Officer also granted approval to her appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.

4. The petitioner was, however, subjected to enquiry by the respondent No.4 and on conclusion of the enquiry, she is accused of playing a fraud on the State Government by securing an employment, in ignorance of the relevant clauses in the policy decision of the State Government contained in the Government Resolution dated 21-9-2017 and in particular stipulation No.4(a) and 5 as contained in Appendix which permitted, only the unmarried sister of the employee to be appointed on compassionate ground provided she was dependent upon him.

Reference is also drawn from the Government Resolution dated

31-12-