Saloni Sachin Dhurve vs State of Maha., Thr. the Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:7094-DB

¶2

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt

¶3

( 1 )

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1800 OF 2025

¶6

Saloni Sachin Dhurve, Aged about 27 Years, Resident of Deendayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Gol Chowk Raipur. .... PETITIONER

¶7

// VERSUS //

¶8

State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶9

Zilla Parishad Gondia, Through CEO Zilla Parishad, Pantanga Maidan Administrative building Gondia.

¶10

Smt Nalini wd/o Raju Patil, Age 42 Years, Occupation : Housewife, R/o. In front of Malviya School, Chandrashekhar Ward Gondia, Tahsil and District Gondia. .... RESPONDENTS

¶11

- - - - Mr. C. M. Samarth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Hulke, AGP for State. Mr. Sahil Mate, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 22.04.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 06.05.2026

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]

¶15

Heard.

¶16

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt

¶17

( 2 )

¶18

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

By this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside the illegal appointment of respondent No.3 on compassionate basis dated 25.12.2024, as it violates the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017.

¶20

Deceased Raju Keshav Patil, who was appointed as a teacher in Zilla Parishad in the year 1997, who served as a teacher in the Zilla Parishad school from 1997 until his demise. He was due to retire in the year 2024. The petitioner’s mother, the first wife of deceased Raju Keshav Patil passed away in 2013 due to cancer. Subsequently, in 2015, the deceased Raju Patil performed the marriage with the respondent No.3 Nilini Raju Patil. The petitioner was having brother, who also passed away in a car accident. Thus, the petitioner is the sole legal heir of deceased Raju Patil.

¶21

As the petitioner’s father passed away while in service, the petitioner being the only child was eligible for compassionate appointment as per the rules. She applied for compassionate appointment on 16.11.2022 at Zilla Parishad after marriage, as she had no other source of income. Similarly, the respondent No.3 Nalini Raju Patil, the second wife of the petitioner’s father also applied for compassionate appointment in Zilla Parishad

¶22

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt ( 3 )

¶23

without informing the petitioner on 16.11.2022. The Zilla Parishad published a list of compassionate appointments in December 2024, wherein the name of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were shown as per the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017, which specifically shows that there has to be no objection certificate from the other legal heirs, if one of the legal heirs are applies for the compassionate appointment. Despite the specific requirement mentioned in the Government Resolution, the Zilla Parishad Gondia approved the appointment of respondent No.3 in absence of the fulfillment of the condition. Therefore, the illegal appointment of respondent No.3 on compassionate basis requires to be quashed and set aside.

¶24

Formal objection was taken by the learned APP. The respondent No.3, who is the contesting party strongly opposed the said contention and challenged the jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that as the petitioner is residing at Raipur, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

¶25

Respondent No.2 Zilla Parishad, Gondia submitted that respondent No.3 being shown as a legally wedded wife in the legal heirship certificate, she was considered as eligible for the compassionate appointment, and therefore, the petition being devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶26

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt

¶27

( 4 )

¶28

Heard learned counsel Mr. C. M. Samarth for the petitioner. He reiterated the said contentions and submitted that in view of the Government Resolution dated 21^st September 2017, specific condition is that when the family members of the deceased applies for compassionate appointment, said application requires to be accompanied by the no objection certificate of the other legal heirs. Despite there being a specific condition, the respondent No.2 has appointed the respondent No.3 in absence of said no objection certificate. The claim of the petitioner was also not considered by the respondent No.2 and compassionate appointment was given to the respondent No.3 by violating the condition mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 21^st September 2017.

¶29

Per contra, learned APP for respondent No.1 submitted that it is a formal party. It is an inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3, therefore, an appropriate order shall be passed.

¶30

None present for the respondent No.2.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction and placed reliance on the decision of Sachin Chhotu Pawar vs. Collector, Raigad and others, 2020 (6) Mh.LJ. 285 and State of Rajasthan

¶32

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt

¶33

( 5 )

¶34

and others Vs. M/s Swaika Properties and another reported in (1985) 3 SCC 217 .

¶35

Having heard both the sides and on perusal of the record, it reveals that by this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the appointment which was granted to the respondent No.3 on compassionate basis. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased Raju Keshav Patil, who was serving as a teacher in Zilla Parishad School, Gondia. He passed away on 01.11.2022. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the daughter of deceased from the first wife. The first wife of the deceased was died in the year 2013. Subsequently, the deceased got married with respondent No.3. The brother of the deceased was also passed away, and therefore, only the petitioner and the respondent No.3 were the legal heirs of the deceased Raju Keshav Patil. After the death of Raju Keshav Patil, petitioner has preferred an application on 16.11.2022 for seeking a compassionate appointment along with the relevant documents. Similarly, on the same day, the respondent No.3 also filed an application with the Zilla Parishad for seeking a compassionate appointment. After receipt of both the applications, the Zilla Parishad, Gondia has published the list of the persons who are eligible for the compassionate appointment. The name of the respondent No.3 is appearing at serial No.12.

¶36

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt

¶37

( 6 )

¶38

The endorsement given in the list shows that in view of the notification, the no objection certificate from the other legal heirs is required which is not given in the case and as the respondent No.3 being the legally wedded wife, she is appointed on a compassionate appointment.

¶39

The object underlying a provision for the grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian considerations and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased, who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, compassionate appointments are to be made. There can perhaps be no dispute on the score, that public employment in offices or posts under the State or its instrumentalities or any other authority covered by Article 12 of the Constitution must be in accordance with the statutory rules or in their absence, in tune with the executive instructions issued for regulating recruitment. The appointment of compassionate ground which is offered on

¶40

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt ( 7 )

¶41

humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the above rule of equality in the matter of public employment.

¶42

In Steel Authority of India Ltd vs Madhusudan Das & Ors reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 , wherein it is held that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all the aspirants. None can claim compassionate appointments on the occurrence, as if, it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is illegally impermissible.

¶43

It is also well settled that the compassionate appointment cannot be made contrary to its policy. Thus, the whole object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is in regard to the satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress entitled appointment on compassionate grounds may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough, a dependent must fulfill the eligible criteria for appointment.

¶44

It is well settled that the appointment of compassionate ground has to be made in terms of the scheme and not otherwise. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment to overcome the sudden financial crises.

¶45

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt

¶46

( 8 )

¶47

Here in the present case, the death is occurred on 01.11.2022. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 both have filed an application for seeking in compassionate appointment. There is no dispute that the respondent No.3 also benefited by grant of pension on the demise of the deceased Raju Patil. The Government Resolution dated 21^st September 2017, clause 4 specifically states the eligibility for the appointment on compassionate grounds, which is reproduced as under:

¶48

“ ¼4½ vuqdaik fu;qDrhlkBh ik= dqVqafc;%&

¶49

¼v½ vuqdaik rRokojhy fu;qDrhlkBh [kkyhy uewn dsysys ukrsokbZd ik= jkgrhy o R;kiSdh ,dk ik= ukrsokbZdkl fu;qDrh vuqKs; jkghy-

¶50

¼1½ irh@ iRuh] ¼2½ eqyxk@eqyxh ¼vfookghr@fookghr½] e`R;wiwohZ dk;ns'khjfjR;k nRrd ?ksrysyk eqyxk@eqyxh ¼vfookghr@fookghr½ ¼3½ fnoaxr 'kkldh; deZpk&;kpk eqyxk g;kr ulsy fdaok rks fu;qDrhlkBh ik= ulsy rj R;kph lwu

¶51

¼4½ ?kVLQksfVr eqyxh fdaok cgh.k] ifjR;Drk eqyxh fdaok cgh.k] fo/kok eqyxh fdaok cgh.k]

¶52

¼5½ dsoG fnoaxr vfookghr 'kkldh; deZpk&;kaP;k ckcrhr R;kP;koj loZLoh voyacwu vl.kkjk HkkÅ fdaok cgh.k ¼'kklu fu.kZ;] fn- 26-10-1994 o fn- 17-11-2016½

¶53

¼vk½ er vf/kdkjh@deZpk&;kaP;k ifr@iRuh us dks.kkph vuqdaik rRokoj fu;qDrh djkoh ;kckcr ukekadu ns.ks vko';d jkghy- er vf/kdkjh@deZpk&;kaps irh@iRuh g;kr ulY;kl R;kP;k@frP;k loZ ik= dqVqafc;kauh ,df=r ;sÅu dks.kkph fu;qDrh djkoh ;kckcr ukekadj djkos¼'kklu fu.kZ;] fn- 17-07-2007½ ”

¶54

Clause No.9 of the said Resolution further states that:

¶55

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt

¶56

( 9 )

¶57

“ ¼ 9 ½ dqVqackrhy brj lnL;kaps laerhi= %&

¶58

v½ vuqdaik rRokoj fu;qDrh gh dqVqackrhy ,dkp ik= ukrsokbZdkl vuqKs; vlY;kus ¼'kklu] fu.kZ;] fn-26-10-1994½ dqVqackrhy brj lnL;kaps uk gjdr izek.ki= lknj dj.ks vko';d vkgs-

¶59

vk½ T;k 'kkldh; deZpk&;kauk oS;fDrd dk;|kuqlkj ,dkis{kk tkLr yXu dj.;kl izfrca/k ulsy v'kk deZpk&;kP;k ,dkis{kk tkLr iRuh g;kr vlY;kl] T;k iRuhyk fdaok frP;k eqykyk@eqyhyk vuqdaik rRokoj fu;qDrh |k;ph vkgs R;k O;frfjDr vU; iRuhps ns[khy uk gjdr izek.ki= ?ks.ks vko';d vkgs- ¼'kklu fu.kZ;] fn-23-08-1996½ ”

¶60

Thus, in the Government Resolution, there is a specific condition that a person who is seeking an appointment on compassionate basis shall along with the application furnish no object certificate of other legal heirs. Admittedly, nothing is on record to show that before appointing the respondent No.3 on a compassionate basis, the respondent No.3 has obtained the no objection certificate of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 against the condition in clause (9) of the said Government Resolution given an appointment to the respondent No.3 without assigning any specific reasons.

¶61

It is thus apparent that the appointment of respondent No.3 is by violating the conditions imposed in the said Government Resolution. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and make an appointment

¶62

wp 1800.2025.Judgment.odt

¶63

( 10 )

¶64

in view of the conditions mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 21^st September 2017.

¶65

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed .

¶68

(ii) The matter is remanded back to the Zilla Parishad, Gondia to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and to make an appropriate decision in view of the Government Resolution dated 21^st September 2017.

¶69

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶70

Rule is made absolute in the above said terms.

¶71

(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)

¶72

Sarkate.

¶73

Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/05/2026 11:42:52

Saloni Sachin Dhurve v. State of Maha., Thr. the Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Saloni Sachin Dhurve v. State of Maha., Thr. the Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil S/O Motiram Dhudas vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Kalmeshwar Nagpur

Bajrang Garg vs the Commissioner of Police Cp Office Civil Lines Nagpur

Pankaj Arvind Gabhane vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary

The Sikh Education Society, Nagpur, Thr. Its General Secretary and Others vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Department of Home Affairs (Mha), New Delhi and Ors.

Shivchand Pran Bansode vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Department of Home Mantralaya Mumbai

Rahul S/O Bandu Bagde vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.