RAVINDRA v. GHUGE, & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON
Facts
WP6891-24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 6891 OF 2024Anand s/o Balasaheb DeshmukhhAge 24 years, Occu: Education R/o Asardoh Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed...PetitionerVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Chief Secretary,General Administrative Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2.The Secretary,Law and Judiciary Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.... Respondents3.The Competent Authority and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice,High Court of Judicature of BombayThrough its Registrar General, Mumbai.4.The Principal District Judge,Beed.Mr. U. L. Telgaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner,Mr. A. B. Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2,Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON : 08.07.2024PRONOUNCED ON:18.07.2024JUDGMENT (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.) 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally byconsent of the parties at the stage of the admission.Page 1 of 13
Legal Reasoning
WP6891-24the employee died in harness, then in such cases compassionateappointment can be considered. Since appointment on compassionatebasis is an exception to the general rule of appointment by an openinvitation, the exception has to be resorted to only when the candidateand his family is in penury so as to provide immediate aid on the deathof the employee in harness. Further, in the case of State of H.P. Vs.Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653, it was observed that compassionateappointment being an exception to the general rule, the dependents ofdeceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policyof compassionate appointment, and they must fulfill the terms of thepolicy which are framed by the State/Employers.14. Further, in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.& others Vs. Anusree K. B., AIR 2022 SC 4766, the daughter ofdeceased employee sought compassionate appointment after lapse of 24years from the death of the deceased under this circumstance, Hon'bleSupreme Court has held in Paragraph No. 9 as under:“9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in theaforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is anexception to the general Rule of appointment in the publicservices and is in favour of the dependents of a deceaseddying in harness and leaving his family in penury andwithout any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out ofpure humanitarian consideration taking into considerationthe fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided,Page 10 of 13 WP6891-24the family would not be able to make both ends meet, aprovision is made in the Rules to provide gainfulemployment to one of the dependents of the deceased whomay be eligible for such employment. The whole object ofgranting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable thefamily to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not togive such family a post much less a post held by thedeceased.9.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in theaforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand andconsidering the observations made herein-above and theobject and purpose for which the appointment oncompassionate ground is provided, the Respondent shall notbe entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground onthe death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After aperiod of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee,the Respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment oncompassionate ground. If such an appointment is made nowand/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall beagainst the object and purpose for which the appointmenton compassionate ground is provided.9.2. Under the circumstances, both, the learned SingleJudge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court havecommitted a serious error in directing the Appellants toreconsider the case of the Respondent for appointment oncompassionate ground. The impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is unsustainable.”15. In the case in hand, it is apparent that the Petitioner's motherdied on 23.12.2007 in a road accident. Though, the Petitioner hasattained the age of majority on 12th September, 2018 he has failed tosubmit an application seeking appointment on compassionate basisPage 11 of 13 WP6891-24within a period of two years as contemplated under amended Rule 10 ofthe Revised Guidelines, 2007. 16. Further, the Petitioner has disclosed the detail about receipt ofthe service/death benefits of his mother, in the application form asunder:(a) Family Pension Rs.3525/- per month(b)Death-cum-retirement GratuityRs.141,000/-(c)Provident FundRs. 83,893/-(d)Deposit linked insurgence scheme.Rs.60,000/-(e)Group Insurance SchemeRs.16,798/-(f)Compensation in Motor Accident ClaimRs.14,00,000/- The Petitioner has also disclosed that at the time of death of hismother, his father was 48 years old and he was drawing agriculturalincome to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- per year. Therefore, it shows thatthe Petitioner and his family were not facing financial crises due to thedeath of his mother, for the period of more than 13 years.17. As per proviso to Rule 10 of Revised Guidelines, 2019, theeldest child of deceased employee who attained the age of majority orat the discretion of the family, the eldest son of the deceased employeeattaining the age of majority is held eligible being dependent familymember of the deceased employee, for appointment on compassionatePage 12 of 13
Arguments
WP6891-242.By the present petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the Petitioner has put forth prayer clause ‘B’ asunder:“B.By issuing writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order ordirection in the like nature, to direct the respondents toprovide employment to the Petitioner on compassionateground."3.In nutshell, facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt.Suman Balasaheb Deshmukh, who is the mother of the Petitioner wasappointed as a Junior Clerk at the establishment of Respondent No. 4on 12-10-1987. She was posted at District Court Ambejogai, DistrictBeed. She was holding post of group “C” cadre. Petitioner’s mother(Smt. Suman Balasaheb Deshmukh) died on 23-12-2007 in a roadaccident. According to the Petitioner her mother was the only breadearner in his family. He, his father and grandparents were dependent onthe income of his mother. His father is a casual labour and above age of48 years. At the time of death of his mother, he was 7 years old,therefore, being minor, he was not eligible to apply for employmentimmediately after the death of his mother and he was also takingeducation by that time. Petitioner obtained degree of B. Sc., ComputerScience in 1st Division and simultaneously, he has completed technicalcourses viz., (i) Course of C-Language (Computer), (ii) M.S.C.I.T., (iii)Page 2 of 13 WP6891-24English Typing 40 W.P.M. and (iv) Marathi Typing 30 W.P.M. Therefore,after attaining the age of majority, on 29.09.2021, he submitted anapplication with Respondent No. 4 and thereby prayed for grant ofappointment on the compassionate ground, however, Respondent No. 4issued the impugned communication dated 15th May, 2024 and rejectedthe request of the Petitioner on ground the that, the application is notfiled within the limitation of one year from the date of death ofemployee.4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner canvassed invehemence that the Scheme of appointment on compassionate groundhas been framed with aim and object to tide over a sudden financialcrisis on all of sudden death of employee on 23-12-2007, however, atthe time of death of Petitioner’s mother, the Petitioner was 7 years oldand after attaining the age of majority on 13th September, 2018, thePetitioner submitted an application on 29.09.2021 (after 3 years). It isfurther canvassed that, the Petitioner acquired essential educational andtechnical qualifications required for the post consistent with therequirement of maintenance of efficiency in administration ofRespondent No. 4, however, Respondent No. 4 rejected the Petitioner’sapplication on sole ground that, application is not filed within thelimitation of one year from the date of death of the employee.Page 3 of 13 WP6891-24Therefore, impugned order is illegal, bad in law as well as contrary toScheme providing compassionate appointment, hence, prayed to quashand set aside the same.5.Per contra learned Government Pleader and learnedcounsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submit that, thePetitioner’s mother died on 23rd December, 2007. Thereafter, thePetitioner submitted an application on 29th September, 2021, after lapseof more than 13 years. The Petitioner’s date of birth is 13th September,2000 and he attained the age of majority on 12th September, 2018 itself,however, the Petitioner has not submitted the application seekingappointment on compassionate basis within the period of 2 years fromthe date of attaining the age of majority as per Rule 10 of the BombayHigh Court Revised Guidelines For Appointment On CompassionateGround, 2007. Therefore, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugnedcommunication along with letter dated 10th May, 2024 issued by theRegistrar (Personnel), High Court, Bombay and rejected the applicationof the Petitioner, which is just and proper, hence, prayed for dismissal ofthe Petition. 6.It is not in dispute that, on 12.10.1987, the Petitioner’smother, Smt. Suman Balasaheb Deshmukh was appointed as a JuniorClerk at the establishment of Respondent No. 4 and she was posted atPage 4 of 13 WP6891-24District Court Ambejogai, District Beed. On 23.12.2007, the Petitioner’smother died in a road accident. The Petitioner is seeking appointmenton the compassionate ground due to death of his mother after 13 yearsand 9 months. The Petitioner has furnished his qualification certificates,which indicates that Petitioner’s date of birth is 13th September, 2000,therefore, the Petitioner has attained the age of majority i.e. 18 years on12th September, 2018. 7.Needless to say that, Respondent No. 4 does not haveindependent Rules in respect of providing appointment oncompassionate ground. Though, Respondent No. 4 requires to followprovisions of Civil Manual, however, it does not contemplate forproviding such appointment on compassionate ground. Respondent No.3 has framed Revised Guidelines for Appointment on CompassionateGround, 2007, which came into force w.e.f. 1st January, 2007. Therefore,the Petitioner’s prayer for appointment on compassionate ground isgoverned under said Rules because, the date of death of Petitioner’smother is 23.12.2007.8.Rule 10 of the Bombay High Court revised Guidelines ForAppointment on Compassionate Ground, 2007 provides as under:Page 5 of 13 WP6891-2410. Limitation for making request for compassionateappointment:"Application for appointment on compassionate ground shallbe made within one year of death in harness, however, in asuitable case the Honourable the Chief Justice may considerrequest for Compassionate appointment made after 1 year upto 2 years after the death of a Judicial Employee."9.According to Petitioner, his mother was the only breadearner in his family. He, his father and grandparents were dependent onincome of his mother. His father is a casual labour and is above the ageof 48 years and he was 7 years old at the time of death of his mother,therefore, being minor, he was not eligible to apply for employmentimmediately after the death of his mother and he was pursuingeducation. The Petitioner obtained the degree of B. Sc., ComputerScience in 1st Division and simultaneously he has completed technicalcourses viz., (i) Course of C-Language (Computer), (ii) M.S.C.I.T., (iii)English Typing 40 W.P.M. and (iv) Marathi Typing 30 W.P.M. Therefore,after attaining the age of majority, on 29-09-2021, he submitted anapplication with Respondent No. 4 and thereby prayed for grant ofappointment on the compassionate ground, however, Respondent No. 4issued the impugned communication dated 15th May, 2024 and rejectedthe request of the Petitioner on ground that the application is not filedwithin period of one year from the day of death of employee.Page 6 of 13 WP6891-2410.In case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika V/s. AhmednagarMahanagar Palika Kamgar Union; (2022) 10 SCC 172 and in case ofThe State of West Bengal V/s. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors.; 2023 (5)Mh.L.J. 156 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the object ofgranting compassionate employment is to tide over a sudden crisis andapplication for grant of appointment on compassionate basis should notbe considered after a prolonged delay. The sense of urgency should notbe lost and entertaining a claim after 17 years would be of no avail.Hence, relief in such cases would be improper.11. In the year 2019, The Bombay High Court has revised theguidelines for appointment on compassionate ground. Rule 10 of theRevised Guidelines, 2019 provides as under:10. Limitation for making request for compassionateappointment:“Application for appointment on compassionate ground shallbe made within one year of death of the employee in harness.However, in a suitable case the Chief Justice may considerrequest for Compassionate appointment made after 1 year upto 2 years after the death of the employee.Provided that if the eligible dependent family member of thedeceased includes son or daughter, the time for makingapplication for compassionate appointment would be oneyear from the date, the eldest of the children of the employeePage 7 of 13 WP6891-24attains the age of majority or, at the discretion of the family,the eldest son of the employee attaining the age of majority."As such, the Petitioner was expected to make his application within 1year after attaining the age of 18 years. However, he has done so after 3years.12. In the case of Malaya Nanda Shethy Vs. State of Orissa,AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 2836, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observedin Paragraph No. 9 as under:"9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrainedto observe that considering the object and purpose ofappointment on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of adeceased employee may be placed in a position of financialhardship upon the untimely death of the employee while inservice and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering offinancial assistance to the family of the deceased consequentupon his untimely death, the authorities must consider anddecide such applications for appointment on compassionategrounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but notbeyond a period of six months from the date of submission ofsuch completed applications.We are constrained to direct as above as we have found thatin several cases, applications for appointment oncompassionate grounds are not attended in time and are keptpending for years together. As a result, the applicants inseveral cases have to approach the concerned High Courtsseeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of theirapplications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous orvexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications.Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order ofPage 8 of 13 WP6891-24rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency oflitigation and passage of time, leaving the family of theemployee who died in harness in the lurch and in financialdifficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authoritiesand on irrelevant considerations, applications made forcompassionate appointment are rejected. After several yearsor are not considered at all as in the instant case.If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionategrounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the Ruleshave to be achieved then it is just and necessary that suchapplications are considered well in time and not in a tardyway. We have come across cases where for nearly two decadesthe controversy regarding the application made forcompassionate appointment is not resolved. Thisconsequently leads to the frustration of the very policy ofgranting compassionate appointment on the death of theemployee while in service. We have, therefore, directed thatsuch applications must be considered at an earliest point oftime. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based onrelevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected onthe basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the factsof the case. Then and then only the object and purpose ofappointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.”13. Indeed, the appointment of a candidate on compassionatebasis does not create any vested right and that it is only when acandidate is covered under all clauses of the scheme applicable at therelevant point of time that he/she could be considered for appointmenton compassionate basis. In the case of SBI Vs. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7SCC 271, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the family ofdeceased employee is in penury and without any source of livelihood ,Page 9 of 13
Decision
WP6891-24ground. However, the Petitioner has failed to submit the applicationseeking appointment on compassionate ground within a period of twoyears.18. As per communication dated 10.05.2024, issued by the learnedRegistrar (Personnel) High Court of Bombay, rejected the claim of thePetitioner in view of Rule 10 of the Revised Guidelines, 2019. Therefore,we do not find that the impugned order suffers from any perversity orillegality. Hence, this Petition fails.19. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule isaccordingly discharged. No order as to costs.( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )JPChavan Page 13 of 13