1 wp 13687.2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

24 WRIT PETITION NO.13687 OF 2019

Nikhil s/o Vishwanath Wagh

Age. 23 years, Occ: Education

Cidco N-7, B-1, 202/203,

Near Datta Temple, Aurangabad

Tq & Dist. Aurangabad

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra,

Through the Secretary,

Social Justice & Special Assistant

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

2.

The Commissioner,

Social Welfare Commissioner Office,

3 Church Path, Pune, 411,001

3.

The Divisional Dy. Commissioner,

Social Welfare Department,

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar,

Social Justice Bhavan, Khokadpura,

Near Shivaji Vidhyalay, Aurangabad

4.

The Assistant Commissioner,

Social Welfare Department,

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar,

Social Justice Bhavan, Khokadpura,

Near Shivaji Vidhyalay, Aurangabad

5.

The Garahpal

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Govt.

Boys Hostel, (Old),

Hadco Corner, Aurangabad

.. Respondents

…

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Estling S. Murge

AGP for Respondents: Mr. S. P. Deshmukh

...

2 wp 13687.2019

CORAM:SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &

S. G. DIGE, JJ.

DATE: 14^th MARCH, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.):

1.

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

the consent of parties, Petition is taken up for

final hearing.

3.

The Petitioner herein is seeking

compassionate appointment in place of his father.

The Petitioner claims to be a minor at the time of

demise of his father. The department had

considered the appointment of the mother of the

Petitioner on compassionate ground after the

demise of her husband. The name of the mother of

the Petitioner is in the Waiting List. On

05.08.2014, the mother of the Petitioner had made

a representation that her son be considered for

compassionate appointment instead of her. She had

expressed her inability to take the job and

therefore had also filed an affidavit giving no

objection for the appointment of her son. The

3 wp 13687.2019

claim of the Petitioner and his mother were not

considered in view of the Government Resolution

dated 20.05.2015, which contemplates that

substituted compassionate appointment cannot be

made for any other person other than the person

who was the legal heir on the date of the demise

of the employee.

4.

This Court while deciding Writ Petition

No.6267 of 2018 by an order dated 11.03.2020 has

held as follows—

“5. After hearing learned advocates for the

parties and going through the Government

Resolution dated 20.05.2015, we are of the view

that the prohibition imposed by the Government

Resolution dated 20.05.2015 that name of any

legal representative of deceased employee would

not be substituted by any other legal

representative seeking appointment

on

compassionate ground, is arbitrary,

irrational and unreasonable and violates the

fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 of

the Constitution of India. As the per the policy

of the State Government, one legal representative

of deceased employee is entitled to be

considered for appointment on compassionate

ground. The prohibition imposed by the

Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 that if

one legal representative of deceased employee

stakes claim for appointment on compassionate

ground, then name of another legal representative

of that deceased employee cannot be substituted

in the list in place of the other legal

representative who had submitted his/her

application earlier, does not further the object

4 wp 13687.2019

of the policy of the State Government

regarding appointments on compassionate

grounds. On the contrary, such prohibition

frustrates the object for which the

policy to give appointments on compassionate

grounds is formulated. It is not the case of

respondent no.2 that petitioner's mother was

given appointment on compassionate ground and

then s