Disposed

Nanda Wd/O Bandu Jamkar v. Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Akola and Others

Bombay HC26 Nov 2024WP/5575/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two connected writ petitions over compassionate appointment to a helper post arising from an employee's death. The Court held there is no right to appointment in the particular vacancy; claimants are only entitled to be wait-listed under the Government Resolution policy, and disposed of the petitions accordingly.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nanda Wd/O Bandu Jamkar Vs Project Officer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 32AWP5575.2021..odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:12846-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5575 OF 2021

¶5

(Smt. Nanda wd/o Bandu Jamkar Vs. Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Dev. Project, Akola and others) WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6742 OF 2024

¶7

(Rajesh s/o Bhaurao Jadhav Vs. Shri Dnyaneshwar Adiwasi Va Magasvargiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kenwad and others)

¶8

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

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶11

- - - - Mr. N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for petitioner in WP No. 5575/2021 and for respondent No. 4 in WP No. 6742/2024.

¶12

Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner in WP No. 6742/2024, Mr. Palshikar, AGP for respondent No. 1 in WP 5575/2021 and for respondent No. 3 in WP No. 6742/2024,

¶13

Mr. Mishra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WP No. 5575/2021 and for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in WP No. 6742/2024.

¶14

Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 4 in WP No. 5575/2021

¶15

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶16

DATED : 26-11-2024

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 5575 OF 2021

¶18

Heard learned Counsel Mr. Warulkar for the petitioner, Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, learned AGP Mr. Palshikar for respondent No.1 and Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 .

¶19

The petition challenges the communications dated 11.8.2020 (page No. 38) and 15.12.2020 (page 46) refusing appointment of the petitioner as a Madatnis (helper), in place of the vacancy created due to the demise of the husband of the petitioner, on compassionate ground. Though learned Counsel Mr. Warulkar contends that the petitioner ought to have been appointed as a Helper in the vacancy created on account of the demise of her husband, the policy regarding compassionate appointment as is spelt out from the GR 31.12.2002 indicates

¶20

2 32AWP5575.2021..odt

¶21

that a person claiming compassionate appointment is required to be wait listed against the vacancies which are reserved for considering such a claim and appointments to such reserved vacancies. As and when such a vacancy is created in proportion to the percentage of reservation of vacancies for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the claim of the petitioner would be considered. It is therefore, clear, that the insistence of the petitioner to be appointed in the vacancy created due to the demise of her husband on compassionate basis, is clearly unjustified. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders. We however make it clear, that the petitioner would be entitled to be wait listed in the wait list to be prepared by the respondent No.1 considering the reservation policy in respect of seats to be made available on compassionate basis and would be entitled to claim appointment on the basis of the working out of such wait list. The petition is therefore, disposed of in the above terms. Needless to mention, that the wait list will have to be prepared in terms of the date of receipt of the application of a candidate in that regard.

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 6742 OF 2024

¶23

Heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Palshikar, the learned AGP for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Warulkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.

¶24

We have disposed of Writ Petition No. 5575/2021, today, in terms above which holds that all that the present respondent No. 4 is entitled, is to get her name included in the wait list for compassionate appointment as the respondent No.

¶25

3 32AWP5575.2021..odt

¶26

4 has no legal right whatsoever, to claim appointment in place of a vacancy created on account of demise of her husband. In light of the above observation, the finding of the Learned School Tribunal, that it was mandatory for respondent No. 1 to fill the post of helper by making appointment on compassionate ground is clearly without merit and is in fact, contrary to the policy of State as is indicted in GR dated 21.12.2002, as it is a settled position of law, that for the purpose of compassionate appointment, there cannot be right qua the post which became vacant on account of demise of the person occupying it, on account of which, a claim for compassionate appointment is made.

¶27

The further finding by the Learned Tribunal based upon the communication dated 14.9.2018 (page No. 37) qua the post of helper that the post was not permitted to be filled, is clearly without any merit as the communication relates to the post of Asst. Teacher and not to the post of helper.

¶28

In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside. In case there is no other impediment, the respondent No. 3 shall grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner in terms of law applicable.

¶29

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶30

Belkhede

Nanda Wd/O Bandu Jamkar v. Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Akola and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nanda Wd/O Bandu Jamkar v. Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Akola and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss. Diksha D/O Kedarnath Sao vs Sumant Bhange, Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Shekhar Ghanshyam Janbandhu vs the State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Ministry of Industries Energy and Labour, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.

Munsi S/O Motiram Kasdekar and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Murlidhar Shaligram Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary for Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Lalit S/O. Ganesh Chavhan and Another Vs State Common Entrance Test Cell, Mumbai Thr. Commissioner and Competent Authority and Anr.

Ku. Sanjivani D/O. Tulshidas Rajput, Thr. Her Father, Shri. Tulshidas Sheshrao Rajput Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy. for General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Ors.