Dismissed

Shri Krishna S/O Vivekrao Wadalkondawar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary, Rural Dev. and Panchayat Raj Dept. Mumbai and 3 Othe

Bombay HC18 Jul 2014WP/4577/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court held that the petitioner had lost his right to be appointed after refusing a previous appointment offered in 2008.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing the petition with no order as to costs.

Shri Krishna S/O Vivekrao Wadalkondawar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp4577-13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶5

Writ Petition No. 4577 of 2013

¶6

Krishna s/o Vivekrao Wadalkondawar

¶7

Vrs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶11

¶12

Shri S.Y. Deopujari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Nitin Rode, AGP, for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4. Shri H.A. Deshpande, counsel for respondent no.3. .

¶13

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶14

V.K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 18TH JULY , 2014 .

¶15

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the communication of the respondent no. 3 dated 28.3.2011 and that of the respondent no. 1 dated 22.2.2013 removing the name of the petitioner from the list of candidates to be appointed on compassionate ground on the establishment of the Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, is illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner seeks his appointment on compassionate ground in ‘C’ category on the establishment of Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.

¶16

Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, who was working in the Zilla Parishad, expired in the year 2003 and the name of the petitioner was included in the list of candidates to be appointed on compassionate ground. It is admitted that the petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2008 in category ‘D’ as an Attendant and was directed to join his duties within a period

¶17

wp4577-13

¶18

¶19

of seven days, failing which the appointment would stand cancelled. The petitioner refused to accept the appointment. The petitioner then conveyed to the respondents that he has improved his qualification and that his name should be included in the list of candidates to be appointed in ‘C’ category. Nothing happened in the matter for long and in the years 2011 and 2013 the name of the petitioner was removed from the list maintained by the respondents for appointment of the candidates on compassionate ground. The action of the respondents is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.

¶20

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the petition, as also the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that there is nothing wrong with the action of the respondents in removing the name of the petitioner from the list of candidates eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. After the death of the father of the petitioner in the year 2003, the name of the petitioner was included in the list of candidates to be appointed on compassionate ground. In fact, as per his turn, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Attendant but the petitioner flatly refused to accept that post. The object of granting appointment on compassionate ground is to provide succour to the members of the family of an employee, who is the sole bread winner and who dies in harness so that his family members should not be thrown on the streets. In the instant case, though the father of the petitioner had expired in the year 2003 and the petitioner could pull on till 2008, he was appointed by the respondents

¶21

wp4577-13

¶22

¶23

on the post of Attendant on compassionate ground but the petitioner flatly refused to accept the appointment on the post of Attendant. The petitioner could not have claimed appointment on a particular post, specially when the appointed was granted to the petitioner on compassionate ground. No person has a right to be appointed on a particular post on compassionate ground. We find that the petitioner had high handedly refused the appointment on the post of Attendant though he was asked to join duties within a period of seven days. The petitioner has lost his right to be appointed on compassionate ground after refusing to be appointed as an Attendant in the year 2008. There is nothing wrong in the action of the respondents in removing the name of the petitioner from the list of candidates who are eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground.

¶24

Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶25

JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

Hirekhan

Shri Krishna S/O Vivekrao Wadalkondawar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary, Rural Dev. and Panchayat Raj Dept. Mumbai and 3 Othe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Krishna S/O Vivekrao Wadalkondawar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary, Rural Dev. and Panchayat Raj Dept. Mumbai and 3 Othe

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

Arvind S/O Shivdas Suryawanshi Vs Shri A.N. Rai, the Director Hr, Bsnl, New Delhi and 2 Others

Vasantkumar Matadin Betharia and Others. Vs Union of India and Others.

Ramkalibai Wd/O Narmadaprasad Yadav and 6 Others. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Others.

Shankar S/O Mahadeo Gayki Vs the Deputy Director of Education Nagpur Division Nagpur and Ors.

Dr Saifuddin Ahmed............ Vs the State of Mah. and Others

Rachana Bhanudas Urkande Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary Dept. of Education Mumbai and 2 Others