HC Expounds: Graduated person with a private job has no Right to Claim the benefits on Superannuation Grounds

 

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order in which it was stated that Respondent had not committed any error in declining the appointment to the Petitioner as a Safai Kamgar on his father's retirement. A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Sanjay A. Deshmukh held that appointment on superannuation grounds cannot be extended to a person who already has a private job and well-settled life.

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner claimed to be belonging to the Mehtar community. His father was appointed as a Sweeper on 16.04.1980. On 11.08.1988 he was posted as a Line Helper in the Class IV category. Later, he was appointed as a Junior Technician and superannuated on 31.05.2020 as a Junior Technician. Pursuant to the superannuation of the Petitioner’s father, the Petitioner tendered an application on 15.09.2020, requesting an appointment in his place. The Petitioner is 32 years of age and declared in the petition that he already has a private job. He suppressed in the petition that he is a Bachelor of Engineering (Information Technology).

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The Petitioner relied upon a Government resolution dated 21.10.2011 pertaining to the Laad - Page committee recommendations commonly known as the Vashilaa / Vaarsa Padhat. The resolution provides that any person eligible to have the right of “Varsa”, can be held eligible for appointment as a Safai Kamgar in place of his father. He then relies upon the second last portion of the Government resolution, which indicates that if the post of Safai Kamgar is not available, an eligible Varasdar having the requisite educational qualification can be considered even for appointment in the Class-III category. 

Contentions of the Respondent:

The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner had acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering (Information Technology) and by no stretch of the imagination, can he be appointed or can it be expected that he would work as a Sweeper in the respondent company’s office. It was further added that the Petitioner is already married, has two children and, by his own declaration, is in private employment.

Observations of the Court:

 

This Court was of the opinion that there can be no debate that the Laad - Page committee recommendations, which are commonly known as Vashila Padhat or the Shifaras Padhat, is to ensure that the neediest persons from the families of those who have been working as Safai Kamgar, should be granted employment, as such legal heirs would be incapable of taking up employment on account of lack of opportunities and lack of education.

In the instant case, the Petitioner, who is a B.E. (IT), has a private job, is married and, has two children, is settled in life. In view of the above, the bench did not find that the Respondent had committed any error in declining appointment to the Petitioner as a Safai Kamgar on the retirement of his father, who was never a Safai Kamgar, but a sweeper only for seven years and worked as a Junior Technician for 32 years. The impugned decision cannot be termed as being perverse or erroneous in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob V/s. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others; AIR 1964 SC 477 and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & others; (2003) 6 SCC 675.

The decision of the Court:  

The Bombay High Court declined to interfere in the impugned order as the Respondent had not committed any error in rejecting the appointment to the Petitioner as a Safai Kamgar on his father's retirement.

 

Case Title: Anupkumar Madhukar Turkele vs State of Maharashtra and others

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Sanjay A. Deshmukh

 

Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.10437 OF 202

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Harshal Prakash Randhir

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. V.M. Kagne and Mr. A.M. Gaikwad

 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!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our

journalism free from government and corporate pressure .