Subhash Shesherao Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Subhash Shesherao Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground despite his father having taken voluntary retirement (rather than died in harness), given the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2005 confining such appointment to heirs of employees who died in harness. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order, which is actually the order of the Deputy Director of Education and was not challenged by the petitioner, is legal and proper.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment eleven years after his father's death with no explanation for the delay and laches; moreover, the management had already offered him a job after the father's death, so the very purpose of financial assistance was served.

Key takeaways

Having gone through the facts of the case, the law in force at the relevant time, and the petitioner's delay and laches, the Court found no substance in the petition and dismissed the Writ Petition.ratio¶14
Per the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2005 relied upon in rejecting the request (which the Court found legal and proper), compassionate appointment is available only to heirs of employees who died in harness while in service; the petitioner's father having taken voluntary retirement, no compassionate appointment could be granted.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 2262 of 2025 — Subhash Shesherao Sathe v. State of Maharashtra and Others (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; coram Shailesh P. Brahme and S. G. Mehare, JJ., per court; decided 05.03.2025). The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground eleven years after his father's death; the father had taken voluntary retirement on 11.03.2012 owing to Tuberculosis and died within seven months. The request had been rejected on the ground that, per Government Resolution dated 22.08.2005, compassionate appointment is available only to heirs of employees who died in harness while in service. The Court held the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education — which the petitioner had not challenged — legal and proper, noted the petitioner's unexplained delay and laches, and observed that the management had already offered him a job after the father's death, so the purpose of financial assistance stood served. Finding no substance in the petition in view of the facts, the law in force at the relevant time and the delay and laches, the Bench dismissed the Writ Petition.

1 922.WP-2262-2025.doc

2025:BHC-AUG:6690-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

922 WRIT PETITION NO. 2262 OF 2025

SUBHASH SHESHERAO SATHE VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. N. Lale Yelwatkar Addl.GP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.S.Patil

DATE : 05^th MARCH 2025

PER COURT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner's father had taken the voluntary retirement on 11.03.2012 as he was suffering from Tuberculosis. Within seven months he died. Eleven years after the death of the father, petitioner moved an application to the management for appointment on compassionate ground. The request of the petitioner has been rejected mainly on the ground that since the father of the petitioner got voluntary retirement due to Tuberculosis and in view of Government Resolution dated 22.08.2005, the compassionate appointment is available only to the heirs of the employees who died in harness when they were in service, no appointment could be granted. The learned AGP also referred the same Government Resolution.

2 922.WP-2262-2025.doc

Prima facie, we are satisfied that the impugned order which is actually the order of the Deputy Director of Education which is not challenged at all is legal and proper. That apart, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after eleven years after the death of his father. He has no explanation for such delay and laches. On the contrary, it has been informed that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the management had offered him the job. So the very purpose of financial assistance was served.

After having gone through the facts of the case and law in force at the relevant time along-with delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, we do not find substance in the petition. Hence, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ S. G. MEHARE, J.]

vsj..