*1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11067 OF 2022

1. Dipika Diliprao Dalvi, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Household, R/o Mu.Post Kurunda, Tq.Vasmat, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Aditya Diliprao Dalvi, Age : 21 years, Occupation : Education, R/o Mu.Post.Kurunda, Tq.Vasmat, Dist.Hingoli.

...PETITIONER -VERSUS-

1. The State of Maharashtra. Through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. The Director of School Education, Pune-01.

3. The Deputy Director of School Education, Aurangabad.

4. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli.

...

Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri Deshpande Abhishek C.

AGP for Respondents 1 to 3/State : Ms.Rashmi P. Gaur Advocate for Respondents 4 and 5 : Shri S.B. Pulkundwar ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 15^th December, 2022 *2*

ORAL JUDGMENT ( P er Ravindra V Ghuge, J. ):-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. On 10.11.2022, we had passed the following order :-

“1. Petitioner No.1 is a widow. Her husband passed away while in service of a school on 22.01.2009. The widow applied for appointment on compassionate basis on 09.11.2009. For the first time, an application is moved on 20.12.2018, which is after almost 10 years, seeking substitution of petitioner No.1 by petitioner No.2. She has two daughters and one son. The son, petitioner No.2, was born on 20.03.2001 and attained the age of 18 years on 20.03.2019. He moved an application on 22.08.2019 to have his name entered in the list of candidates seeking compassionate appointment, in place of his mother.

2. We find that this petition does not contain pleadings as regards how the petitioners’ family survived for almost 14 years after the death of the bread earner. There are no details about the marital status of the two daughters. There are no details tendered as regards whether the widow had earned any income or had received any pension which sustained herself and her family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the purpose of granting compassionate appointment, after passage of decades or more, would actually defeat the purpose of granting compassionate appointment.

3. We, therefore, called upon the petitioners to give us the details as to how the family survived for the last 14 years and as to what is the marital status of the two daughters. Let such information be placed on record by filing *3*

an affidavit of petitioner No.1.

4. At the request of the petitioner, stand overt to

05.12.2022, in the ‘urgent’ category.”

3. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 03.12.2022, which is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. It is set out in the affidavit that after the husband of the petitioner passed away on 22.01.2009, petitioner No.1/widow had tendered an application on 09.11.2009 seeking compassionate appointment. Her name was enlisted in the list of eligible candidates. She has two daughters and one son. The elder daughter got married in 2014 and is now settled in life. The second daughter has completed her graduation in Commerce faculty and is 23 years of age. Son is about 21 years of age and is pursuing his second year in the D.Ed. Course. Petitioner No.1 is receiving family pension of Rs.14,500/- per month. There is no other source of income. She has, therefore, prayed that as she has turned 48 years of age, her son may be substituted in her place and be granted compassionate appointment.

4. The law on compassionate appointment has now been crystallized by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And others. Vs. Anushree KB, (2022) SCC Online SC 1331, Director of Treasuries in Karnataka vs. Somyashree, (2021) SCC Online SC *4*

704 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Premlata, (2022) 1 SCC 30, on the following aspects :-

(a) Compassionate appointment is not a right to be exercise