Dismissed¶¶23

Changdeo Choklia Waghmare v. the Chief Officer and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2025WP/425/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; delay and laches (7-year delay in filing writ petition); Covid-19 explanation held incomprehensible; object of scheme — immediate succor to indigent family after breadwinner's death; wards of retiring employees ordinarily not entitled; Lad-Page Committee Report — scavenging activities; temporary sweeper (15 November 1978 to 14 December 1978) vs regular sweeper; regularisation as mazoor; Complaint (ULP) No.20 of 2011; Industrial Court, Sangli; Tasgaon Nagar Parishad; writ petition rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is inordinate delay and laches: the Complaint was dismissed on 21 January 2016 and the writ petition was filed on 30 October 2023, a delay of 7 long years. ¶¶16

Changdeo Choklia Waghmare vs the Chief Officer and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite inordinate delay and laches, having been filed about seven years after the Industrial Court dismissed the Complaint. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

There is inordinate delay and laches: the Complaint was dismissed on 21 January 2016 and the writ petition was filed on 30 October 2023, a delay of 7 long years.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The justifications pleaded for the delay are vague and unsupported: no material particulars or supporting documents are produced regarding the wife of Petitioner No.1's heart ailments, and how the Covid-19 pandemic prevented filing for 7 long years is incomprehensible.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to indigent members of the family after death of the breadwinner; the Petitioners' wait of seven long years after dismissal of the Complaint shows absence of any need of financial assistance to the family.ratio¶¶17
On merits, ordinarily wards of retiring employees are not entitled to compassionate appointment.ratio¶¶18
There is nothing on record to indicate that Petitioner No.1 was a regular sweeper in the Municipal Council: he worked as temporary sweeper only from 15 November 1978 to 14 December 1978 and was regularised in service on the post of mazoor.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J.) rejects writ petition challenging order dated 21 January 2016 of the Member, Industrial Court, Sangli dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.20 of 2011, by which the Petitioners sought compassionate appointment in place of their father, claimed to have worked as a Sweeper with Respondent Tasgaon Nagar Parishad. Held: (i) petition barred by inordinate delay and laches — Complaint dismissed 21 January 2016, petition filed 30 October 2023, a delay of 7 years; pleas of the first Petitioner's wife's heart ailments and the Covid-19 pandemic are vague, unsupported by particulars or documents, and the Covid plea is 'incomprehensible'; (ii) the object of compassionate appointment is immediate succor to the indigent family after the breadwinner's death, and a seven-year wait after dismissal of the Complaint shows absence of any need of financial assistance; (iii) on merits, wards of retiring employees are ordinarily not entitled to compassionate appointment; although the Lad-Page Committee Report envisages compassionate appointment for persons engaged in scavenging activities, the Municipal Council's order recorded a finding of fact that Petitioner No.1 worked as temporary sweeper only from 15 November 1978 to 14 December 1978 and was regularised in service on the post of mazoor — nothing on record shows he was a regular sweeper, so the benefit under the Lad-Page Committee Report is not extendable. Petition rejected.

¶1

Megha 41_wp_425_2024.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2024

¶4

Changdeo Chokha Waghmare and Anr. ...Petitioners

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The Chief Officer, Tasgaon Nagar Parishad, Tasgaon. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for the Petitioners.

¶8

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 3 February 2025.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Petition challenges order dated 21 January 2016 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Sangli, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.20 of 2011 filed by the Petitioners. The Complaint was filed seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father on the strength that he was working with Respondent -Municipal Council as Sweeper.

¶11

MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2025.02.04 14:30:54 +0530

¶13

I have heard Mr. Nikam, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. I have also gone through the findings recorded by the Industrial Court while dismissing the Complaint as well as documents placed alongwith the Petition.

¶14

Page No. 1 of 3 3 February 2025

¶15

Megha 41_wp_425_2024.docx

¶16

First reason for not entertaining the present Petition is inordinate delay and laches in filing the same. Petitioners’ Complaint was dismissed on 21 January 2016 whereas the present Petition is filed on 30 October 2023. Thus, there is delay of 7 long years in filing the present Petition. Though a vague justification is sought to be pleaded in paragraph 12 of the Petition about the wife of Petitioner No.1 suffering from heart attacks at regular intervals and she succumbing to the same, no material particulars such as date, etc. or supporting documents in that regard are produced. Another vague reason is of Covid-19 pandemic. However, how Covid-19 pandemic prevented the Petitioners from filing the Petition for 7 long years, is incomprehensible.

¶17

It must be borne in mind that the Petitioners seek compassionate appointment and the object of the scheme is to provide immediate succor to indigent members of the family after death of the breadwinner. In the present case, the fact that Petitioners had luxury of waiting for seven long years to file the petition after dismissal of Complaint clearly shows absence of any need of financial assistance to the family.

¶18

So far as merits of the case is concerned, Petitioner’s father retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Ordinarily wards of retiring employees are not entitled for compassionate appointment. However, reliance is

¶19

Page No. 2 of 3

¶20

3 February 2025

¶21

Megha 41_wp_425_2024.docx

¶22

placed on Lad-Page Committee Report, which envisages grant of compassionate appointment to persons engaged in scavenging activities. With a view to fit himself in parameters of Lad-Page Committee Report, the employee attempted to prove that he used to work as sweeper. However, in the order rejecting compassionate appointment the Municipal Council recorded a finding of fact that Petitioner No.1 worked as temporary sweeper only from 15 November 1978 to 14 December 1978. Order of regular appointment of Petitioner No.1 would indicate that he was regularised in service on the post of mazoor. Therefore, there is nothing on record to indicate that Petitioner No.1 was a regular sweeper in the Municipal Council. Therefore, the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Lad-Page Committee Report can otherwise be not extended in the present case. Thus, on both counts of delay as well as on merits, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Petition.

¶23

6) Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶24

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶25

Page No. 3 of 3 3 February 2025

Changdeo Choklia Waghmare v. the Chief Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Changdeo Choklia Waghmare v. the Chief Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sonu Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Ashok Chowdhary vs Oil and Natural Gas Company Ltd. (Ongc) through Its Manager

M/S. Thim Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kailashkumar Ragaji Prajapati vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and Ors.

Radha Vishweshvar Cooperative Housing Society Limited a Wing vs New Bansi Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited

Ags Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs Phantom Studios lndia Pvt. Ltd.

Hingangaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. through Chairman vs Salim Yasin Mujawar