Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Ors. v. Shri. Sagar G. Chikshhe

Bombay HC28 Jul 2014WP/4925/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the Administrative Tribunal's order granting compassionate appointment to the respondent, who is a minor adult. The Court directed the petitioner to issue the appointment order within two months, imposed costs for insensitivity, and dismissed the State's petition as devoid of merit despite the petitioner's persistent delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to consider the case and issue the order of appointment on compassionate basis within two months; imposed costs of Rs. 5,000; dismissed the writ petition.

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

9.WPNo.49252014(J)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4925 OF 2014

¶4

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶5

The Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶6

The District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Nashik, Dist.Nashik.

¶7

The District Collector, Nashik, Dist.Nashik. ... Petitioners

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Shri.Sagar G. Chikshe, Adult, R/o. Flat No.3, Shrishraddha Co-op. Housing Society, Indira Nagar, AB Road, Nashik, Dist.Nashik. ... Respondent

¶10

Mr.P.G.Sawant, 'B' Panel, A.G.P. for the Petitioner/State.

¶11

CORAM :NARESH H.PATIL & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ. DATE : 28TH JULY, 2014

¶12

ORDER: (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge J.)

1/4

Gaikwad RD

9.WPNo.49252014(J)

We have heard the learned advocates for the respective sides. 02. The father of the respondent i.e. Late Gajanan Santukrao Chikshe was working with the Agriculture Department of the Petitioner as an Agriculture Supervisor. He, unfortunately, died while in service on 18/02/2004. The respondent-Sagar Gajanan Chikshe was admittedly a minor at the time of the passing away of his father.

¶17

The mother of the respondent and the widow of Late Gajanan, Smt.Sadhana Gajanan Chikshe made an application seeking compassionate appointment on 05/05/2004. After verifying the documents produced by her, it was noted that she was beyond the age limit of 45 years owing to her date of birth being 27/04/1964. As per the G.R.No.Akampa-1004/Pra.Kra.51/2004/8, dated 22/08/2005, her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected and this fact was communicated to her by letter dated 16/10/2009.

¶18

It was in the above circumstances that the respondent-Sagar made an application for compassionate appointment on 16/01/2010 after completing the age of 18 years. The said application was rejected on the spacious plea that the said application was not made within one year of the respondent attaining adulthood. It is undisputed that he was a minor at the time of his father's death and his mother's application was pending.

¶19

After hearing the learned advocates, we have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance. The original application No. 120 of 2011 filed by the respondent before the Maharashtra

2/4

Gaikwad RD

9.WPNo.49252014(J)

Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (“M.A.T.” in short) was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 12/12/2013. The learned M.A.T. has come to a specific finding that the respondent-Sagar attained adulthood (18 years of age) on 25/10/2009 and applied for compassionate appointment by an application dated 16/01/2010, which was squarely within one year. His case was within the prescription of the G.R. dated 22/08/2005.

¶24

Compassionate appointment is aimed at reducing the rigours of unemployment and starvation that may have befallen on a widow and her family on account of the untimely demise of the sole bread earner of the family. The introduction of the principle of compassionate appointment is nothing short of social legislation, though not a right. Such cases are to be looked into with compassion and magnanimity. When a case of compassionate appointment falls within the ambit of the rules and is not affected by laches or inordinate delay, the Government as a model employer ought to react with kindness. This has also been the view of this Court in the case of Smt.Mumtaz Yunus Mulani V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others, W.P.No.7369 of 1999 decided on 19/08/2006, to which one of us (Naresh H. Patil J.) was a party. We find that the petitioner-Government has not only adopted an unsustainable and unreasonable stand, but clearly exhibited a rigid and adamant attitude. The rejection by the petitioner of the application dated 16/01/2010 filed by the respondent, was rightly interfered with by the learned M.A.T.

3/4

Gaikwad RD

9.WPNo.49252014(J)

In the facts and circumstances recorded above, we do not find that the learned M.A.T. has arrived at an erroneous or perverse conclusion. The learned M.A.T has rightly directed the petitioner to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of the judgment i.e. 12/12/2013.

¶29

Despite the above said fact, the petitioner has kept the matter pending showing gross insensitivity to the case of the respondent and has preferred this petition on 15/05/2014. In this view of the matter, while upholding the conclusions of the learned M.A.T., we direct the petitioner to take immediate steps if there is no legal impediment, and issue the order of appointment on compassionate basis to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this order. In view of the insensitivity and apathy shown by the petitioner towards the respondent, we find it fit to direct the petitioner to henceforth ensure that such attitude of insensitivity shall not be displayed on their behalf and to pay costs quantified at Rs.Five Thousand only to the Respondent within two months.

¶30

09. Writ Petition being devoid of merit is therefore dismissed.

¶31

(RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,J.)

¶32

(NARESH .H.PATIL, J.)

¶33

4/4

¶34

Gaikwad RD

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Ors. v. Shri. Sagar G. Chikshhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Ors. v. Shri. Sagar G. Chikshhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Dashrath Gude Vs Director of Fisheries, Maharashtra State and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Dept and Ors. Vs Dr. Arvind Krishnaji Jadhav and Ors.

Prakash Dashrath Gude Vs Director of Fisheries, Maharashtra State and Ors.

Vasant K. Thakur and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Neeta Amit Khardikar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Dept of School Education and Sports and Ors.

Union of India, through Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways and Ors. Vs Mr. Jaideep Digambar Pawar