Dismissed

Shri. Mahesh Nagnath Bandgar, v. the Sup. Engineet

Bombay HC2 Mar 2016WP/536/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting his application for compassionate appointment. The Court held that the deceased had previously declined employment due to family responsibilities, indicating no financial crisis existed, and thus the appointment was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner summarily dismissed for failure to establish financial emergency; no appointment granted.

Shri. Mahesh Nagnath Bandgar, Vs the Sup… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 53614.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 536 OF 2014

¶5

Mahesh Nagnath Bandgar

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Superintendent Engineer, PW Circle, Solapur & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. Amey R. Deshpande i/by
Mr.J.D. Khairnar	Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Pravin G. Sawant	AGP for the State / Respondents

¶12

CORAM : D.H. WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

¶13

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶14

DATE : MARCH 2, 2016.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition being

¶17

aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2013 passed by the

¶18

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 641 of 2012. By the said order, the O.A. preferred by the

¶19

petitioner seeking relief of being appointed on

¶20

compassionate ground in Class-III cadre came to be dismissed.

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

¶22

wp 53614.doc

¶23

2. The petitioner's father died on 15.3.1998 while he was

¶24

working as Tracer (Class-III) after serving for 18 years. According to the petitioner, his mother had applied for appointment on compassionate ground in Class-IV post. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said application was kept pending. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. By communication dated 1.12.2004, the petitioner was informed that he was underage in the sense that he was 16 years and 6 months of age. Hence, the petitioner was informed that he should prefer an application for appointment on compassionate ground after completing the age of 18. Thus, on 1.12.2004, the petitioner could not have been considered for the appointment on compassionate ground as he was below 18 years of age. Thereafter, the petitioner applied again for compassionate appointment, however, the said application came to be rejected by respondent No. 2 by letter dated 31.1.2007 as the application was beyond the prescribed period of one year after attaining the age of

¶25

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

¶26

wp 53614.doc

¶27

majority.

¶28

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶29

the second application was made by the petitioner in time, Even if it is so, what is most pertinent to note in the present case is that the petitioner willfully suppressed the communication dated 11.12.1998 sent by his mother to the respondents wherein it was categorically mentioned that though she had applied for compassionate appointment on 6.8.1998, however, as her children were small, she had to take care of them and she also had to take care of her husband's land in the village and as such, she was not willing to take up any compassionate appointment, hence, her earlier application dated 6.8.1998 seeking compassionate appointment should be treated as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his mother had not preferred any such letter and the said letter is forged. It is seen that the petitioner had not made any reference at all to this communication in the O.A. preferred by him before the

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

¶31

wp 53614.doc

¶32

Tribunal. This belated stand taken by the petitioner that the

¶33

signature of his mother on the letter is forged cannot be believed.

¶34

4. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis. The object being to

¶35

relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Mere death of any employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able

¶36

to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to eligible member of the family. Thus, the only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. It is clear that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family

¶37

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

¶38

wp 53614.doc

¶39

to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of

¶40

the death of the sole breadwinner.

¶41

5. The letter of the mother of the petitioner clearly shows

¶42

that she did not wish to take up any appointment on compassionate ground. This shows that the family was not in need of any employment. In any event, the consideration

¶43

for compassionate appointment is not a vested right. Looking to all these facts, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference,

¶44

hence, the petitioner is summarily dismissed.

¶45

[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶46

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5

Shri. Mahesh Nagnath Bandgar, v. the Sup. Engineet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mahesh Nagnath Bandgar, v. the Sup. Engineet

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

Ram Kumar Chaubey Vs the Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Official Liquidator of Firth (India Steel Company Limited and 5 Others

Shri. Anand Dhundiraj Shenolikar and Anr. Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Milan Ganesh Bansode Vs the Project Director and Superintending Engineer and Ors.

The Commissioner, State Intelligence Dept. (M.S.) Mumbai Vs Shri Sunil Sadashiv Padave

Satishkumar B. Mishra Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Anr.