Ravindra v. Ghuge & Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.) and a separate application isalso filed seeking con
Legal Reasoning
( 2 ) 915 ca 4872.25Accordingly, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed anddisposed of.4.The review petition is taken up for consideration. Learnedcounsel for the Petitioner submits that the said judgment and order of thisCourt needs to be reviewed in the light of certain order passed by theMaharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application whichreferred to Government Resolutions while granting relief to the Applicantsbefore the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner,the Government Resolutions can also benefit the Petitioner, which has notbeen considered by this Court.5.It is settled law that a review petition can be entertained andallowed only when an error apparent on the face of record isdemonstrated. In this backdrop, when we perused the judgment and orderdated 10.06.2024, of which review is sought, we find that the facts havebeen considered in detail and in paragraph nos.14 to 16, it has been heldas follows:“14.We do not find that the claim of the Petitioner is well placed in thelight of the fact that 5.8 clearly provides that even if the close relative of a‘Safai Kamgar’ is in Government or Semi Government Authorities oremployed with the local Authorities, it would not be an impediment for acandidate to seek employment on the basis of the Warsaa Hakka (Right of ( 3 ) 915 ca 4872.25Inheritance) which is also known as the Vashila Paddhat (SpecialRecommendation) in the State of Maharashtra.15.The Petitioner’s father is a ‘Safai Kamgar’ and is still inemployment. His grandfather was also a ‘Safai Kamgar’ and so was hisgreat grandfather. According to the Petitioner, though his father is inemployment as a ‘Safai Kamgar’, based on the Lad Page Committeerecommendations, there is no impediment to the Petitioner in claimingsuch employment in view of the fact that his grandfather was inemployment on 05.10.1983. We are fortified in our conclusion that thePetitioner cannot claim such employment, by the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Ahmednagar Mahanagarpalika V/s. AhmednagarMahanagarpalika Kamgar Union; 2022 III CLR 859. The Hon’bleSupreme Court has held as under:“5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case,the Industrial Court has directed the Mahanagar Palika/MunicipalCorporation to give appointment to the heirs of the employees on theirsuperannuation/retirement as per judgment and award passed inReference IT No. 51 of 1979. However, it is required to be noted thatthe said judgment and award was passed in the year 1981, at the timewhen the Municipal Council was in existence. That thereafter in theyear 2003, the Municipal Council has been converted to MunicipalCorporation/Mahanagar Palika and all the employees under MahanagarPalika/Municipal Corporation are governed by the scheme/rules ®ulations framed by the State Government, which does not providefor any appointment on compassionate grounds or the appointment tothe heirs of the employees on their superannuation/retirement.6. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in Reference (IT)No. 2/1993, which was at the instance of Mahanagar Palika on thenotice of change in respect of demand of employment to the heirs ofthe employee as per Reference (IT) No. 51 of 1979, the IndustrialCourt vide judgment and award dated 21.02.2005 directed theappointment on compassionate grounds to the heirs of the deceasedemployees only. It was specifically observed by the Industrial Courtthat at the time of passing earlier award in Reference IT No. 51 of1979, i.e., in the year 1979 the demand to provide the employment to ( 4 ) 915 ca 4872.25the legal heirs of the employees on their retirement/superannuation wasreasonable, however, in the present situation the said demand does notappear to be good and reasonable. The Industrial Court furtherobserved that, needless to say, now-a-days the unemployment problemis a very major problem and in spite of high qualifications the qualifiedpersons are not getting jobs and they remain unemployed. Whilemodifying the demand and directing to provide appointment oncompassionate grounds to the legal heirs of the employees (on thedeath of the concerned employee), in judgment and award dated21.02.2005 in Reference IT No. 2/1993, it was observed by theIndustrial Court as under:“It seems from the oral submissions of the parties that, at the time ofpassing earlier award in Ref. (IT) No. 51/1979 i.e., in the year 1979 thedemand for providing the employment to the legal heir of employeewas reasonable however in present situation the said demand does notappears to be good and reasonable. Needless to say, that nowadays theunemployment problems is very major. In spite of high qualifications,the qualified persons are not getting job and they are unemployed. Inview of this demand there is no scope for qualified unemployed personto get the job in the establishment of the party no. 1, as the legal heirsof the employees will get the job in place of the employee working inthe establishment of the party no. 1. Mr. Patil learned advocate for theparty no. 1 rightly submitted that on the basis of this demand the legalheirs are claiming employment on attaining the majority and if thelegal heir is minor at the time of superannuation and that too after 10years also under such circumstances in my opinion also the demand ofproviding employment to the legal heirs does not appears to be proper.It has sufficiently come on record through the oral evidence of theparties that as per this demand the employment has been claimed as ofright and there is no scope for selection of proper candidate, even theguidelines of the government regarding Reservation could not befollowed. It is pertinent to note here that, as per the government policycertain post in the establishment are reserved for back ward classes andon those post- employment is to be given to the candidate from reservecategory however as there is no scope for employment to others,therefore, it is very difficult for the candidates from reserve category toget employment in the establishment of the party no. 1.It has also come on record that, as per this demand the employment isbeing claimed for distant relative on the basis of adoption. True it isthat the adoption can be made as per law and after adoption theadopted child because legal heir of that person however it seems fromthe various copies of documents placed before the Court thatemployment has been claimed for nephew on the basis of affidavit ( 5 ) 915 ca 4872.25saying that the nephew is taking care of that employee. Similarly, inanother matter the employment is sought for adopted son byapplication dated 02.05.1997 and deed of adoption has been executedon 30.04.1997.From these documents it can be said positively that the demand orproviding employment to the legal heirs of the employees has beenmisused. Furthermore, nothing has been placed on record on behalf ofthe party no. 2 union that such practice is being continued in any otherestablishment. The witness of the party no. 2 union specifically askedabout the however he could not brought any documentary evidence. In my opinion also even though this demand was reasonable in 1979however the same is certainly not reasonable and justified duringpresent days and in the light of misuse of the demand it can be safelysaid that the party no. 1 is justified in seeking change in the demand inrespect of providing the employment to the legal heirs of theemployees on superannuation, invalidity or resignation, be now I aminclined to modify the demand and directing the party no. 1 to provide(1) employment to the legal heirs of the employees of Class-IVcategory working in health department only (2) to provide theemployment to the legal heirs of all categories i.e. Class-I category toClass-IV category on compassionate ground as per governmentResolutions and circulars at par with governments employees.” In view of the above also, thereafter it was not open for theIndustrial Court and/or even the High Court to direct the MahanagarPalika/Municipal Corporation to provide appointment to the heirs ofthe employees on their retirement/superannuation, relying upon thejudgment and award passed by the Industrial Court in Reference IT No.51 of 1979.7. After the conversion of the Municipal Council to MunicipalCorporation/Mahanagar Palika, the employees of the MahanagarPalika/Municipal Corporation shall be governed by the scheme framedby the State Government and at par with the government employees.As per the recent decision of this Court in the case of Bheemesh aliasBheemappa (supra), the appointment on compassionate ground shall beas per the modified scheme. Therefore, the employees of theMahanagar Palika/Municipal Corporation shall be governed by thescheme of the State Government at par with the governmentemployees, which does not provide for appointment on compassionategrounds to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/orsuperannuation.8. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of theemployees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contraryto the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds ( 6 ) 915 ca 4872.25and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed andheld by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointmentshall always be treated as an exception to the normal method ofrecruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is providedupon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of securitywhatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is notautomatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of variousparameters including the financial position of the family, the economicdependence of the family upon the deceased employee and theavocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim tohave a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds.Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extendedto the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement.If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall neverget an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on theirsuperannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and thosewho are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get anappointment though they may be more meritorious and/or welleducated and/or more qualified. Therefore, the submission on behalf ofthe respondent that the appointment is not on compassionate groundsbut the same be called as varas hakka cannot be accepted. Even if thesame be called as varas hakka the same is not supported by any schemeand even the same also can be said to be violative of Article 14 as wellas Article 15 of the Constitution of India.”16.In view of the above, we do not find that the refusal by theGovernment Medical College, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar to grantemployment to the Petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 14.03.2024,could be termed as being erroneous. This Writ Petition is thereforedismissed. Rule is discharged.”6.A perusal of the above quoted portion of the said judgmentand order shows that this Court specifically found that the father of thePetitioner being a Safai Kamgar is still in employment. Thereupon, thisCourt applied the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofAhmednagar Mahanagarpalika V/s. Ahmednagar Mahanagarpalika Kamgar ( 7 ) 915 ca 4872.25Union; 2022 III CLR 859, to hold that in the facts of the present case theGovt. Medical College & Hospital, Ch. Sambhajinagar correctly refused togrant employment to the Petitioner as a Safai Kamgar. We do not find anyerror apparent on the face of record. In any case, the order of the Tribunalcannot be binding on this Court and therefore, no case is made out by thePetitioner to seek review of the said judgment and order.7.Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [MANISH PITALE, J.]mub
Arguments
( 1 ) 915 ca 4872.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD915 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4872 OF 2025 IN RAST/12120/2025SHAIKH KARIM SHAIKH HARUNVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS…..Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chaudhari M.S. AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.D. Ghayal…..CORAM : MANISH PITALE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE :10th July, 2025P.C. :-1.Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.2.The Petitioner has filed a review petition seeking review ofjudgment and order dated 10.06.2024 passed by this Court (Coram :Ravindra V. Ghuge & Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.) and a separate application isalso filed seeking condonation of delay of 278 days in filing the petition forreview.3.Having considered the contentions in the application seekingcondonation of delay, we are inclined to accept the statements madetherein, which demonstrate sufficient cause for condoning delay,