SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR CJ. & SMT. VIBHA v. KANKANWADI, JJ.DATE
Facts
1 WP / 13430 / 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 13430 OF 2023Rahul S/o Fulaji Bhotkar,Age : 23 years, Occu : Unemployed,R/o : Sasurwada, Tq. Sillod,District Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Tq. & District Aurangabad3] The Executive Engineer (Water Supply), Rural Water Supply Department, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad .. Respondents...Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent no. 1 – State.Mr. C.D. Biradar, Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 and 3.... CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR CJ. & SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI, JJ.DATE : 30th September 2025.Per : Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ :Aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Engineer (WaterSupply), the petitioner who is the son of a former employeearp/ 2 WP / 13430 / 2023 under the Water Supply Division of the Zilla Parishad hasapproached this Court. 2.The petitioner states that his father was employed asValveman on daily-wages basis under the establishment of theZilla Parishad since 1st May 1991. In view of the KalelkarAward, a proposal was forwarded by the Zilla Parishad to theState Government for inclusion of the name of the employeesworking on daily-wages to be inducted as the regular employeeof the Zilla Parishad. But the said proposal was rejected on 29thMarch 2008 by the State Government and that decision wastaken to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5324 of 2009 byAkhil Marathwada Zilla Parishad Kamgar Union. The petitionerstates that the name of his father figured among 27 employeeson whose behalf the said writ petition was filed. It is furtherstated that it was by virtue of the decision of this Courtrendered on 03rd February 2016 that a direction was issued tothe respondents to extend the benefit of Government Resolutiondated 10th July 1974 in respect of those 27 employees includingthe father of the petitioner.3.The petitioner further states that his father passed awayon 15th October 2020 and he made an application forcompassionate appointment on 07th December 2020. The saidapplication moved by him was rejected on the ground that itwas not in proper format. The petitioner further states that hemade another application for compassionate appointment on12th October 2021 after obtaining the heirship certificate. Thepetitioner makes a reference to another representation dated08th May 2023 submitted by him and seeks to challenge thearp/ 3 WP / 13430 / 2023 decision of the respondent -Authority declining his claim for thecompassionate appointment.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thefirst application moved by the petitioner on 07th December 2020was within time and, thereafter, the subsequent applicationsfiled by him could not have been rejected on the ground ofdelay. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Clause10(A) of the Government Resolution dated 21st September 2017under which the respondent-Authority has power to extend thetime by further two years.5.In “Shreejith L. v. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala andothers” (2012) 7 SCC 248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thatin case an application is made by the legal heirs of a deceasedemployee claiming the benefit of the scheme for compassionateappointment, the deficiencies and defects in the said applicationought to be pointed out to the person concerned to enable himto remove the same within a reasonable time. In paragraph no.38 of the reported judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held asunder :-“38. Having said that, we have no manner of doubt that in casean application is made by the legal heirs of a deceased employeeclaiming the benefit of the scheme for compassionate appointment,the deficiencies and defects, if any, in the said application ought tobe pointed out to the person concerned to enable him to remove thesame within a reasonable time. But if the defects are not removedwithin the time granted, an adverse inference could be drawnagainst the person in default. On the contrary, where anapplication is filed, entertained and eventually declined for areason other than the form in which the same ought to have beenfiled, the rejection cannot be supported before the higher authorityarp/
Legal Reasoning
4 WP / 13430 / 2023 or in the court on the ground that application was non est as thesame was not in the prescribed form. The application forappointment filed on behalf of the respondent could not thereforehave been rejected on the ground that the same was not in theprescribed form.”6.The petitioner who lost his father at an early age hascompleted Bachelor of Science in April 2022. On a glance at theorder dated 06th July 2023, we find that there is no controversyas to the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner to seekcompassionate appointment. This is well settled that thescheme of compassionate appointment emanates fromhumanitarian grounds to provide immediate relief to the familyof the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financialcrises. In “Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors.”(2011) 4 SCC 209, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that thescheme of compassionate appointment is carved out in theinterest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy whichpartakes the character of the service rules. In “State Bank ofIndia & Anr. v. Somvir Singh” (2007) 4 SCC 778, the Hon'bleSupreme Court held that the right for consideration forappointment must be traceable under any scheme, executiveinstructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer and there canbe no right whatsoever to claim compassionate appointment onany ground other than what has been provided by the employer.But then, the Employer cannot decline compassionateappointment to the dependent of the former employee on theground of delay, if under the rules the respondent-Authority hasbeen vested powers to condone the delay. There cannot be adispute to this proposition that the writ Court cannot issue aarp/ 5 WP / 13430 / 2023 direction to the respondent-Authority to exercise its power torelax. However, the arbitrary decision of the respondent-Authority to reject the claim for compassionate appointmentcannot be countenanced in law and such a decision shall fallwithin the ambit of judicial review under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.7.The Government Resolution dated 21st September 2017provides under Clause 10(A) that the respondent-Authority shallhave power to condone the delay of two years and accept theapplication for compassionate appointment submitted beyondthe period of one year. Moreover, in view of the pandemic ofCOVID-19, the so-called delay in making the second applicationon 12th December 2021 was required to be condoned,particularly, in view of the directions issued by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 thatthe period from 15th March 2020 till 28th February 2022 shall beexcluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribedunder any general or special laws in respect of all judicial orquasi-judicial proceedings. The decision in “Amol SahebraoSuryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra & others” 2022 SCCOnLine Bom 1696 clearly lays down that the Zilla Parishadcannot create two classes of employees to deny compassionateappointment to the dependents of the employees who were paidfrom self-generated fund. The Division Bench of this Courtfurther held that the scheme for compassionate appointmentformulated by the State Government was adopted by the ZillaParishad and the said scheme was not formulated for anyseparate group of employees. We may also point out that 2ndarp/ 6 WP / 13430 / 2023 respondent-Zilla Parishad was one of the respondents added in“Amol Sahebrao Suryawanshi”. Still, the respondent-Authoritydid not address its attention to the decision of this Court anddeclined the claim for compassionate appointment in amechanical manner. In view of the decision in “Amol SahebraoSuryawanshi”, the opinion expressed by the respondent-Authority in its decision dated 06th July 2023 that the petitioneris not entitled for compassionate appointment is clearly wrongand erroneous.8.In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned orderdated 06th July 2023 issued by the respondent no. 2 and theletter dated 03rd July 2023 issued by the respondent no. 3 arequashed. The petitioner is held entitled for compassionateappointment and his name shall be included in the list ofdependents claiming compassionate appointment as per thescheme.9.Writ Petition No. 13430 of 2023 is allowed. [SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] arp/