Allowed¶13

Pushpa Gautam Chunarkar and Another v. Coal India Limited, Kolkata Thr. Its Chairman and Others

Bombay HC27 Mar 2025WP/652/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment denied for delay and applicant's minority at employee's death — Court holds inter-se dispute between deceased employee's two wives (first wife Vijubai consented, note sheet 07.5.2022) a reasonable cause for delay; age objection falls away as petitioner now 26. Coal India Limited & others directed to grant employment per compassionate-appointment policy subject to other requirements; petition allowed, no costs. Bombay HC Nagpur Bench, WP 652/2024, decided 27.03.2025; no reply filed by respondents for over a year.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed with direction to the respondents to grant employment to petitioner No. 2 in terms of the policy of compassionate appointment if all other requirements in that regard stand fulfilled; no costs imposed. ¶13

Pushpa Gautam Chunarkar and Another vs Coal India Limited, Kolkata Thr. Its Chairman and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner No. 2's claim for appointment on compassionate basis following the demise of ex-employee Gautam Chokharam Chunarkar was rightly rejected on the grounds of (a) delay in making the application and (b) petitioner No. 2 having been 13 years 2 months old at the time of the ex-employee's death.

¶9

Court's answer

The Court held that the inter-se dispute between the two wives of the deceased employee can be considered a reasonable ground for the delay which may have occurred in making the compassionate-appointment claim.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the second ground for rejection — petitioner No. 2 having been 13 years 2 months old at the time of the ex-employee's death — no longer survives, as the petitioner today is 26 years of age.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Court held that there is no impediment in the respondents granting employment to petitioner No. 2 in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment, subject to all other requirements in that regard standing fulfilled.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 652 of 2024 (Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench) — Compassionate appointment: Petition allowed. The communication dated 18.1.2023 rejecting petitioner No. 2's claim for compassionate appointment on the demise of ex-employee Gautam Chokharam Chunarkar was set aside on two grounds: (i) the delay in making the application was reasonably explained by the inter-se dispute between the deceased employee's two wives, already resolved by the first wife Vijubai's recorded consent (note sheet dated 07.5.2022); and (ii) the age-based objection was unsustainable since petitioner No. 2, then 13 years 2 months, is now 26 years of age. Respondents (Coal India Limited & others) were directed to grant employment to petitioner No. 2 in terms of the compassionate-appointment policy if all other requirements stand fulfilled. No costs. Decided 27.03.2025 (Gharote & Mantri, JJ.).

¶1

1 4-652-24.odt

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 652 OF 2024 Pushpa Gautam Chunarkar and another Vs. Coal India Limited & others

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶5

Mr. Mandar Rajeev Pande, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. P.V. Ghare, Advocate for Respondents

¶6

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

¶7

DATED : 27^th MARCH, 2025

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.

¶9

The petition questions the communication dated 18.1.2023 by which the claim of the petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate basis on account of demise of late Gautam Chokharam Chunarkar has been rejected on the ground, that there is delay in making the application and the petitioner No. 2 was 13 years 2 months at the time of death of the ex-employee (page 109).

¶10

Though Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for the respondents seeks time, however, we find, that no reply is filed on record since last more than a year, on account of which, we have proceeded to hear the petition.

¶11

On perusal of the record, what we find is, that though late Gautam Chunarkar, the ex-employee

¶12

2 4-652-24.odt

¶13

had two wives Vijubai and Pushpa, the dispute inter-se between them already stood resolved, by the first wife Vijubai having submitted her consent for the employment of the petitioner no. 2 in place of the ex - employee. This is apparent from what has been noted in the note sheet dated 07.5.2022 (page 107). The inter-se dispute between the two wives of deceased employee can be considered to be reasonable ground for the delay which may have occurred in making the claim. Insofar as second ground for rejection as is indicated from the impugned communication dated 18.1.2023 (page 109), it is stated that the petitioner No. 2 was 13 years 2 months at the time of death of the ex - employee. The petitioner today is 26 years of age and, therefore, that reason does not survive at all. We, therefore, do not see any impediment in the respondents granting employment to the petitioner No.2 in terms of the policy for compassionate appointment. We allow the petition with direction to the respondents to grant employment to the petitioner No.2 in terms of the policy of compassionate appointment if all other requirements in that regard stand fulfilled. The petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs.

¶14

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

¶15

MP Deshpande

¶16

Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/03/2025 18:00:18

Pushpa Gautam Chunarkar and Another v. Coal India Limited, Kolkata Thr. Its Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Gautam Chunarkar and Another v. Coal India Limited, Kolkata Thr. Its Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M.R. Bahu-Uddeshiya Vikas Sanstha, Gonida, Thr. Preisident, Anil Rajendra Gondane vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Ku. Vaishnavi Sitaram Wagh Vs the Vice-Chairman /Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

The Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur Commissionerate, Nagpur vs M/S. Al Udai Exim Llp, a Limited Liability Partnership, Lucknow, (U.P.)

M/S. K. B. Enterprises, Thr. Proprietor, Imran Nisar Sayyed Vs State of Maharashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Anr.

Shankar Kondbaji Aswale and Others vs Western Coalfields Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Coal Estate, Nagpur and Others

Ramkishor Siddheshwar Yadav vs the Deputy Inspector General, Sector Headquarters, Border Security Force, Jammu and Ors.