The Bombay High Court allowed the Petitioner’s claim for appointment on the compassionate ground despite the fact that the deceased brother of the Petitioner was survived by his wife and minor children. The exception was carved out considering the object of the Scheme i.e. to provide immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee and the fact that the Petitioner has been maintaining the family of the deceased over a long period of time.
Brief Facts:
The petition was filed as the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Wardha, vide order dated 20th July, 2022, declined to grant approval to the Petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground, in view of Policy set out in Government Resolutions dated 31st December, 2002 and 21st September, 2017. The case of the Petitioner was that his brother died in 2008 survived by his widow and children. However, the deceased wife had not accepted the appointment on the compassionate ground but was given no objection to the appointment of the Petitioner.
In 2013, the Petitioner was appointed on a two-year probation period. Where after, the Education Officer, refused to grant the approval, the reason being, compassionate appointment Policy, set out in the Government Resolutions dated 31st December, 2002 and 21st September, 2017, disentitles the Petitioner from seeking compassionate appointment since the deceased had left behind a widow and minor son. The following issues came for consideration-
- Whether Petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on death of his married brother, survived by widow and minor son, was admissible to the Scheme of compassionate appointment?
- Whether exclusion of brother, of married deceased-employee for compassionate appointment, has rational nexus with the purpose and object, sought to be achieved, under the scheme of compassionate appointment?
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel contended that the exclusion of Petitioner from the Scheme of compassionate appointment was unreasonable and had no rational nexus with the purpose and object sought to be achieved. He submitted that the object of the Scheme is to provide immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee, and after the inability of the deceased wife, there was none other than the Petitioner to be appointed for the post. Therefore, the Petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds was consistent with the object of the Scheme, and the Education officer has to be directed to grant the approval.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel of the Respondent contended that the claim for compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and the exclusion of brother (married deceased) from consideration for appointment on the compassionate ground from the Scheme was neither unjust nor unreasonable nor discriminatory. As per the Scheme, the deceased's brother can be granted an appointment only when the deceased is unmarried, and the brother was wholly dependent on the brother. Since the deceased employee was married and left behind a widow and minor son, Petitioner was not eligible to seek an appointment on the compassionate ground.
Observation of the Court
Firstly, this Court had made clear that the appointment of the Petitioner on the compassionate ground was made only after he had assured to support his brother’s family. After that, in consideration of the peculiar facts of the case, the Court noted that the appointment of Petitioner has been continued over a period of 10 years. Though, the approval to his appointment was sought in the year 2013 itself, but not granted by the Education Officer till 2022. Despite this, Petitioner has been looking after the family of deceased since 2013. Therefore, the Court held that it is not appropriate to discontinue the Petitioner’s services in the mentioned facts and in the interest of justice the relief sought by the Petitioner was granted.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court directed the Education officer to consider the Petitioner’s claim as a special case and approve his appointment on compassionate grounds.
Case Title: Vinod vs State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sandeep K. Shinde and Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 2317 OF 2017
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. H.A. Deshpande
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. D.P. Thakare and Mr. A.A. Naik
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments