Dismissed

Omkar Madan Velhal v. the Education Officer and Others

Bombay HC22 Oct 2007WP/5478/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay rejected a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate ground appointment application. The court held that the mother died over 8 years prior and the petitioner has alternative income, negating the necessity of compassionate consideration.

What did the court decide?

None. The prayer for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected summarily.

Omkar Madan Velhal Vs the Education Officer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

srp.

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 5478 OF 2007.

¶5

 Omkar Madan Velhal. ..Petitioner.

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

 The Education Officer and others. ..Respondents.

¶8

---

¶9

 Mr. R. M. Kolge for the petitioner.

¶10

CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ.

¶11

DATE : OCTOBER 22, 2007.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
 By this petition the petitioner challenges the
 communication dated 6th February 2007 issued by the
 respondent no.2 rejecting the petitioner’s
 application for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶14

 2. We are not inclined to entertain the

¶15

 petition for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner’s
 mother died on 14th February 1999; more than 8 years
 have since passed eliminating any ground need to tide
 over a financial crisis arising out of the death.
 Secondly, the petitioner’s father is employed in the
 Zilla Parishad, Sangli and draws a salary of

¶16

:2:

¶17

 Rs.13,000/- per month. The grand father of the

¶18

 petitioner, with whom the the petitioner allegedly

¶19

 stays is also drawing pension. This is not a case of

¶20

 penury of financial crises arising out of untimely

¶21

 death of a sole breadwinner in the family.

¶22

 Petitioner’s family has a reasonable amount of

¶23

 income. Appointments on compassionate ground are an

¶24

 exception to the rule of equal opportunity in
 employment contained in Articles 14 & 16 of the
 Constitution of India. As the petitioner is not

¶25

 suffering from any penury, the petitioner cannot

¶26

 by-pass the rule of equality and claim employment on
 compassionate grounds. In the circumstances the

¶27

 petition is rejected summarily.

¶28

(D.G.KARNIK, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)

Omkar Madan Velhal v. the Education Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkar Madan Velhal v. the Education Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yuvaraj Laxman Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Valsala Vishwanathan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mukund Harishchandra Karulkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sameer Abdul Kadar Shaikh Vs P.S.N. Rao and Ors.

Bhushan Keshav Kawale Vs Chairman and Managing Director-Union Bank of India and Ors.

Dr. Nitin Sudhakar Mahkarkar Vs the Registrar - University of Pune