Petitioner sought a direction for compassionate appointment on the death of his father, a PWD employee who had superannuated a week before his death. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that compassionate appointment cannot be granted post-superannuation, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AUG:4851-DB
WP-2208-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2208 OF 2024
Asad Abdulrahim Sayyad
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The District Collector, Aurangabad
3. The Superintending Engineer, Pune Region Electric Board, Public Works Department, Pune
4. The Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Region (Electric) Aurangabad, Public Works Department, Aurangabad ...Respondents
...
Mr. R. A. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP, for the Respondents – State.
...
CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
R. M. JOSHI, JJ
RESERVED ON:FEBRUARY 29, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON:MARCH 07, 2024
JUDGMENT (PER R. M. JOSHI, J)
1.By consent of both sides, heard finally at the
stage of admission.
2. This Petition is filed for seeking direction
to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to issue compassionate
appointment to the Petitioner in view of application
Page 1 of 7
WP-2208-2024.odt
and proposal forwarded by Respondent No. 4 to
Respondent no. 3 on 02.02.2019, on any suitable and
available post as per educational qualification of the
Petitioner.
3.Father of the Petitioner was appointed in the
services of Aurangabad Regional Electricity Board,
Public Works Department, Aurangabad on 06.07.1967. He
was permanent employee and was working on the post of
Naik. He was in service till 30.01.2004. It is the
claim of the Petitioner that his father was not getting
well and was hospitalized and unfortunately died on
06.02.2004. After the death of the father of the
Petitioner, the wife of the deceased had filed
application before Civil Court, Aurangabad bearing
MARJI No. 455/2004 for getting succession certificate.
By order dated 15.09.2006 succession certificate was
granted. It is his further contention that another suit
came to be filed bearing RCS No. 490/2005 by second
wife of deceased, which was disposed of on 22.08.2006.
Subsequently, internal dispute between the parties was
resolved and for getting the compassionate appointment,
applications were made with Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. He
Page 2 of 7
WP-2208-2024.odt
furtherclaimsthatinresponsetothe
application/representation filed by the Petitioner
Executive Engineer, PWD vide letter dated 19.01.2019
directed the Petitioner to submit necessary documents
along with application in prescribed form so as to
enable him to forward the proposal for appointment of
the Petitioner. The said proposal was forwarded on
02.02.2019 by Authority but failed to issue the
compassionate appointment.
4.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the documentary evidence placed on record clearly
indicates about all compliances being done by the
Petitioner for getting compassionate appointment and as
such, it is a fit case to direct the Respondents to
appoint the Petitioner on suitable post on
compassionate appointment. He claims that father of
Petitioner was admitted in hospital and was in
employment on the date of his death on 06.02.2004.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance
on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Malaya
Nanda Sethy V. State of Orissa, AIR 2022 SC 2836 to
argue that the mere delay on the part of the Petitioner
Page 3 of 7
WP-2208-2024.odt
to file an application for compassionate appointment,
the same cannot be denied if there are sufficient
reasons/explanation for not preferring the same
earlier.
5.Learned AGP opposed the Petition by contending
that the Petitioner is putting forth half-truth. His
deceased father had superannuated on 31.01.2004. His
death occurred after his superannuation. To support his
submissions,heplacedrelianceonOffice
Order/08/2003-04, which is taken on record and marked
‘X’ for identification.
6.There cannot be any dispute about the fact
that the father of the Petitioner superannuated on
31.01.2004 on the basis of order placed on record,
genuineness of which is not in dispute. In such
circumstances, the question arises before this Court as
to whether there could be an order by this Court of
compassionate appointment after the superannuation of
the employee.
7.Petitioner may be justified in saying that
Page 4 of 7
WP-2208-2024.odt
owing to the disputes inter se between the parties
i.e., between two wives of the deceased, no application
was filed for compassionate appointment and on that
sole ground his case may not be rejected. However,
considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika versus Ahmednagar
Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, Civil Appeal No.
5944/2022compassionate appointment cannot be granted
after the superannuation of the employee. In this
regard, it would be relevant to consider the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph
8 of the judgment which reads thus:
8. Even otherwise, such an appointment to
the heirs of the employees on their
retirement and/or superannuation shall be
contrary to the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate grounds and is
hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. As observed and held by this Court
in a catena of decisions, compassionate
appointment shall always be treated as an
exception to the normal method of
recruitment.Theappointmenton
compassionate grounds is provided upon the
death of an employee in harness without any
kindofsecuritywhatsoever.The
appointment on compassionate grounds is not
automatic and shall be subject to the
strict scrutiny of various parameters
including the financial position of the
family, the economic dependence of the
family upon the deceased employee and the
avocation of the other members of the
Page 5 of 7
WP-2208-2024.odt
family. No one can claim to have a vested
right for appointment on compassionate
grounds.Therefore,appointmenton
compassionate grounds cannot be extended to
the heirs of the employees on their
superannuation and/or retirement. If such
an appointment is permitted, in that case,
outsiders shall never get an appointment
and only the heirs of the employees on
their superannuation and/or retirement
shall get an appointment and those who are
the outsiders shall never get an
opportunity to get an appointment though
they may be more meritorious and/or well
educated and/or more qualified. Therefore,
the submission on behalf of the respondent
thattheappointmentisnoton
compassionate grounds but the same be
called as varas hakka cannot be accepted.
Even if the same be called as varas hakka
the same is not supported by any scheme and
even the same also can be said to be
violative of Article 14 as well as Article
15 of the Constitution of India.
8.The dictum of the Supreme Court on the subject
is absolutely clear and as such, Petitioner would have
no right to claim compassionate appointment after
superannuation of his father. In any case, there is
nothing on record to indicate that the service
conditions of the deceased provide for compassionate
appointment even after his superannuation, to take any
different view.
9.In view of the above discussion, Petitioner
Page 6 of 7
WP-2208-2024.odt
has failed to make out any case for issuing any
direction to Respondents for compassionate appointment
of the Petitioner. In the result, this Writ Petition
stands dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)
Malani
Page 7 of 7
1 issue framed by the court
Can compassionate appointment be directed after the employee has superannuated before death?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Malaya Nanda Sethy V. State of OrissaReferred¶4
AIR 2022 SC 2836 · Who else cites this
Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika versus Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar UnionRelied on¶7
Civil Appeal No. 5944/2022
Asad Abdulrahim Sayyad
The State of Maharashtra
The District Collector, Aurangabad
The Superintending Engineer, Pune Region Electric Board, Public Works Department, Pune
The Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Region (Electric) Aurangabad, Public Works Department, Aurangabad
Ravindra V. Ghuge
R. M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court