Writ Petition No. 2895 of 2022 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
*1* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 75 WRIT PETITION NO.2895 OF 2022 Kapil s/o Shivajirao Shinde, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o At Post Venkatesh Niwas, Sadhana Nagar, Deglur, Dist: Nanded-431717. -VERSUS- ...PETITIONER 1. 2. 3. Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Through its General Manager Head Office at Plot No. 42, Gut No.33 (part), Village Golwadi, Growth Center Waluj Mahanagar IV Cidco Aurangabad-431010 (Email address: [email protected]) Maharashtra Gramin Bank Through its Chairman, Head Office at Plot No. 42, Gut No.33 (part), Village Golwadi, Growth Center Waluj Mahanagar IV Cidco Aurangabad-431010 (Email address: [email protected]) Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Nanded, Dr.Kesrale Building Yashwant Nagar Pawdewadinkar Nanded, Dist.Nanded (Email address [email protected] and [email protected]) ...RESPONDENTS *2* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 AND 76 WRIT PETITION NO.2921 OF 2022 Afjalkhan s/o Isakhan Pathan, Age : 31 years, Occupation : At present serving with Hadgaon Branch of respondent Bank on daily wages, R/o At Post Pimparkhed Hadgaon, Nanded-431712. ...PETITIONER 1. 2. 3. -VERSUS- Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Through its General Manager Head Office at Plot No. 42, Gut No.33 (part), Village Golwadi, Growth Center Waluj Mahanagar IV Cidco Aurangabad-431010 (Email address: [email protected]) Maharashtra Gramin Bank Through its Chairman, Head Office at Plot No. 42, Gut No.33 (part), Village Golwadi, Growth Center Waluj Mahanagar IV Cidco Aurangabad-431010 (Email address: [email protected]) Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Nanded, Dr.Kesrale Building Yashwant Nagar Pawdewadinkar Nanded, Dist.Nanded (Email address [email protected] and [email protected]) ...RESPONDENTS *3* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 AND 77 WRIT PETITION NO.3024 OF 2022 Rohit s/o Diliprao Khiste, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o New Bhagaya Nagar Opp.Bhagwan School PVR Chowk, Khadgaon Ring Road, Latur-431512. -VERSUS- ...PETITIONER 1. 2. 3. Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Through its General Manager Head Office at Plot No. 42, Gut No.33 (part), Village Golwadi, Growth Center Waluj Mahanagar IV Cidco Aurangabad-431010 (Email address: [email protected]) Maharashtra Gramin Bank Through its Chairman, Head Office at Plot No. 42, Gut No.33 (part), Village Golwadi, Growth Center Waluj Mahanagar IV Cidco Aurangabad-431010 (Email address: [email protected]) Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Near Kia Showroom Barshi Road, Dist.Latur (Email address [email protected]) ...RESPONDENTS *4* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 AND 78 WRIT PETITION NO.3025 OF 2022 Nitish s/o Laxmanrao Pathe, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o House No.34, Chakradhar Swami Nagar, Taroda (Kh) Bhavsar Chowk Malegaon Road, Tq.& Dist.Nanded-431605. -VERSUS- ...PETITIONER 1. 2. 3. Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Through its General Manager Head Office at Plot No. 42, Gut No.33 (part), Village Golwadi, Growth Center Waluj Mahanagar IV Cidco Aurangabad-431010 (Email address: [email protected]) Maharashtra Gramin Bank Through its Chairman, Head Office at Plot No. 42, Gut No.33 (part), Village Golwadi, Growth Center Waluj Mahanagar IV Cidco Aurangabad-431010 (Email address: [email protected]) Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Near Kia Showroom Barshi Road, Dist.Latur (Email address [email protected]) ...RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
... Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri Ajeet D. Kasliwal Advocate for the Respondents : Shri P.L. Shahane and Shri P.P. Shahane ... *5* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. & DATE :- 03rd January, 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT ( :- Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. In all these petitions, the identically placed petitioners are aggrieved by the communication dated 17.01.2022 vide which, the respondent has declined to consider their applications for compassionate appointments on the ground that the scheme for making the appointment on compassionate basis was made effective from 27.02.2019 after the scheme was adopted under the directions of the NABARD. 3. The petitioners, by placing reliance upon the judgment dated 08.09.2021 delivered by this Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge and S.G. Mehare, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.8023/2020 filed by Smt.Archana wd/o Mahendra Arbat and others vs. Maharashtra Gramin Bank and others, have contended that this Court has already ruled that the scheme for *6* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 compassionate appointment was adopted by the Bank on 05.12.2014 and hence, these petitioners also deserve to be considered for compassionate appointment. 4. Before we advert to the judgment in Smt.Archana Arbat (supra), it is necessary to record the events, as follows :- (a) Kapil Shivajirao Shinde, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2895/2022, lost his father on 23.10.2018. He moved an application for seeking compassionate appointment within one year in July, 2019. (b) Afjalkhan Isakhan Pathan, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2921/2022, lost his father on 23.10.2016. He moved an application for seeking compassionate appointment in July, 2019 i.e. after three years. (c) Rohit Diliprao Khiste, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3024/2022, lost his father on 17.08.2015. He moved an application for seeking compassionate appointment after four years, on 01.08.2019. (d) Nitish Laxmanrao Pathe, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3025/2022, lost his father on *7* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 24.11.2014. He moved an application for seeking compassionate appointment after five years, on 19.06.2019. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioners contends that there is no stipulation in the scheme as to the time within which the application for compassionate appointment should be made. He, therefore, justifies the filing of the applications by the second, third and fourth petitioners after the periods of three years, four years and five years, respectively. 6. Considering the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court 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 704 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Premlata, (2022) 1 SCC 30, the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners no. 2 to 4, is fallacious. If this argument is to be accepted, the litigants, who are in deep-slumber, would wake up and make applications even after five years, 10 years or 15 years. This cannot be countenanced. Similar is the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika *8* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 (III) CLR 859. 7.
Decision
In view of the above, we need to consider the case of Kapil Shivajirao Shinde, whose father passed away on 23.10.2018. He admittedly made an application in July, 2019, which was forwarded by the Degloor Branch to the Regional Office at Nanded on 07.08.2019 and thereafter, to the Divisional Office at Aurangabad, on 25.09.2019. 8. Insofar as the judgment delivered by this Court in Smt.Archana Arbat (supra) is concerned, the four petitioners in the said case were already appointed by the respondent Bank on 04.09.2019 as the compassionate appointment scheme applicable to the public sector banks was made applicable to the respondent (Maharashtra Gramin Bank) vide coverage clause 1.1. After these four compassionate appointees were granted appointments and they resumed their employment, the Bank terminated their services in view of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Bank on 27.02.2019 thereby, adopting the compassionate appointment scheme. This Court considered the conduct of the Bank in entertaining the cases of the compassionate appointees. After they were granted employment *9* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 on compassionate basis, they were subsequently terminated vide order dated 12.03.2020 by taking a stand that when they were appointed on compassionate basis, the scheme was not adopted by the Bank. This Court negated the contention of the Bank as the termination was effected by passing a cryptic order without adhering to the principles of natural justice and by concluding that the scheme was considered by the Bank while granting appointments to these four persons. The respondent Bank has implemented the judgment of this Court dated 08.09.2021 and reinstated the four compassionate appointees. 9. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, the stale claims for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained. On account of this reason, the claims put forth by the petitioners, namely, Afjalkhan Isakhan Pathan, Rohit Diliprao Khiste and Nitish Laxmanrao Pathe, cannot be entertained since they made their applications for compassionate appointment for the first time after three years, four years and five years, respectively, after the death of their fathers. Today, it is 08 years that have passed in the case of Nitish Pathe, 07 years in the case of Rohit Khiste and 06 years in the case of Afjalkhan Pathan. We *10* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 are, therefore, not considering these three cases. 10. In the case of Kapil Shivajirao Shinde, his father passed away on 23.10.2018 and he moved his application for compassionate appointment in July, 2019 with the Degloor Branch, which forwarded it to the Regional Office at Nanded on 07.08.2019 and thereafter, the Divisional Office at Aurangabad received it on 25.09.2019. Drawing parity in the case of Kapil Shinde and Smt.Archana, Saurabh, Paradip and Akash (petitioners in Writ Petition No.8023/2020 decided by this Court vide judgment dated 08.09.2021), we are of the view that the case of Kapil Shinde can be considered as he had moved an application for compassionate appointment within nine months from the date of the demise of his father. 11. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.2895/2022 filed by Kapil Shivajirao Shinde is partly allowed. The communication dated 17.01.2022 is quashed and set aside only to the extent of the petitioner Kapil Shivajirao Shinde. We direct the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment on it’s own merits and depending upon the vacancies available. Rule is made partly absolute. 12. Insofar as Writ Petition Nos.2921/2022, 3024/2022 *11* 75t78wp2895a2921a3024a3025o22 and 3025/2022 are concerned, for the reasons recorded above, these three Writ Petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. kps (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)