AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
This Petition is filed with the
following prayers:
(A) By way of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction or Order, in the like nature the respondents be directed to give appointment to one of the petitioner [Preferably petitioner no.2] on suitable post under the policy of compassionate ground at her/his husband''s/father''s place in
respondent no.5 committee for which she/he is entitled as per rules.
It is the case of the petitioners
that, husband of petitioner no.1, and father
of petitioner no.2 [for the sake of brevity
''deceased''] died on 16th January, 2011, while
he was in employment/service of respondent
no.5. The father of petitioner no.2 was
appointed from S.C. category. He worked as
Clerk till 2010, and promoted as ''Statistics
Officer''. He died on 16th January, 2011,
during the course of employment. The father
of petitioner no.2 died leaving behind wife
i.e. petitioner no.1 and son i.e. petitioner
no.2.
It is further the case of the
petitioners that, petitioner no.1 filed an
application for compassionate appointment on
13th September, 2011. The said application was
filed within one year from the death of
husband of petitioner no.1. The copy of the
said application was marked to respondent
nos.2 and 4. Along with the said application,
necessary documents were placed on record.
Petitioner no.1 made repeated request to
respondent no.5 to appoint her on
compassionate ground, however, her
claim/grievance is not redressed till date.
It is further the case of the petitioners
that, when petitioner no.1 filed application,
petitioner no.2 was minor. Petitioner no.2
became major on 2nd February, 2015. As per the
instructions of petitioner no.1, petitioner
no.2 filed application on 25th May, 2015, to
appoint him on compassionate ground in place
of his father. He again filed application in
the nature of reminder on 24.02.2016 and
20.02.2016, and requested respondent no.5 to
appoint him on compassionate ground.
Respondent no.4 has issued one letter to
respondent no.5 to consider the application
of petitioner no.2 in accordance with the
Rules, however, till date the said
application is not considered by respondent
no.5. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners invites our attention to the
copies of the various letters /
representations written by the petitioners to
the respondents.
It is further the case of the
petitioners that, the petitioners are facing
financial crunch and to overcome the said
financial difficulties faced by them, it is
necessary to appoint petitioner no.2 on
compassionate ground. It is further the case
of the petitioners that, the claim of the
petitioners is pending since the year 2011,
however, instead of appointing petitioner
no.1 or after 2015 petitioner no.2,
respondent no.5 appointed other persons on
compassionate ground though the petitioners
filed applications for appointment on
compassionate ground. Therefore, relying upon
the grounds taken in the Petition, relevant
Government Resolutions dated 26th November,
1994, 11th September, 1996 and 22nd August,
2005, issued by the General Administration
Department, Government of Maharashtra. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that, the Petition may be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.5, relying upon
the averments in the affidavit-in-reply
submits that, already three persons are
appointed on compassionate ground. The claim
of those three appointees was prior to the
claim of the petitioners for appointment on
compassionate ground. Therefore, he submits
that, the Petition may be rejected.
We have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent-State, and learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.5. It appears
that, though the petitioners belong to
''Scheduled Caste'' category, petitioner no.1
was not appointed when there was one vacancy
available for S.C. category in the year 2012.
It appears that, the appointment was given to
Satyashil Hirabhau Dhebadse on 4th February,
2013 as ''Shipai'' in Class-VI category.
Therefore, prima facie it appears that, the
application of petitioner no.1, which was
filed in the year 2011, and the application
of petitioner no.2, which was filed in the
year 2015, when he became major, have not
been considered by respondent no.5. Keeping
in view the date of filing of the
applications, and the relevant Government
policy, and the fact that the petitioners
belong to S.C. category.
It is clear from the affidavit-in-
reply filed by respondent nos.2 and 4 that,
respondent no.4 directed respondent no.5,
vide letter dated 11th October, 2011, 20th
February, 2016 and 8th November, 2017, for
taking appropriate steps/action on the
applications filed by the petitioners.
In the light of the discussion
herein above, we direct respondent no.5 to
consider the claim of petitioner no.2,
keeping in view the date of application of
petitioner no.1 i.e. in the year 2011, and to
take appropriate decision, as expeditiously
as possible, however, within 8 weeks from
today. Till the application of the
petitioners is considered on merits, and the
decision is taken to that effect, respondent
no.5 shall not fill-up the vacancies in
respect of Class-IV employees.
We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on merits of the claim
of the petitioners, and it is for respondent
no.5 to decide the said claim on its own
merits, keeping in view the relevant
Government Resolutions / procedure and
guidelines, if any.
Rule is made absolute on above
terms. The Writ Petition stands disposed
accordingly.