Smt. Savita Prakash Dhote vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai and Ors.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:3441-DB

¶2

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶3

1

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.7042 OF 2025

¶5

PETITIONER : Smt. Savita Prakash Dhote , aged 48 yrs., Occu.-Service, r/o Haware Greens Chowk, Flat No.206, Mardi Road, Jibhole Colony, Amravati.

¶6

.. VERSUS ..

¶7

RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Director of Higher Education , State of Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune.

¶9

3 The Joint Director of Higher Education , Amravati Region, Government V.M.V. Institute premises, Camp, Amravati.

¶10

4 Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University , Amravati, through its Registrar, Tapowan Gate, Camp, Amravati.

¶11

¶12

Shri. B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. N. S. Rao, AGP for Respondents/State. Ms B. A. Abhyankar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶13

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 2 nd FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)

¶15

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ

¶16

petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking

¶18

challenge to the impugned communication dated 7^th August, 2024,

¶19

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶20

2

¶21

issued by respondent No.1 – State of Maharashtra and the consequential communication dated 26^th August, 2024, issued by respondent No.4 – University, whereby respondent No.1 had rejected the proposal for condonation of the upper age limit for regular appointment of the petitioner as a Junior Assistant on compassionate basis in the establishment of respondent No.4 – University.

¶22

The undisputed facts, leading to the filing of the present writ petition, are as follow:

¶23

3.1. The petitioner is the wife of late Shri. Prakash Shankarrao Dhote, who was working as a Wireman in the establishment of respondent No.4 – University. He was appointed in the year 1989 on daily-wage and after some years, his services were regularized in the year 2011. He had served respondent No.4University for 23 years, till he died in harness on 5^th September, 2013. The family of Shri. Prakash Shankarrao Dhote comprised of his wife i.e. the present petitioner and one minor son. Since the sole bread earner of the family passed away, the petitioner immediately on 3^rd October, 2013, submitted an application to respondent No.4 seeking appointment on compassionate basis.

¶24

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶25

3

¶26

3.2. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was

¶27

forwarded by respondent No.4 - University to respondent No.3 -

¶28

the Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati on 21^st November, 2013, who in turn forwarded it to respondent No.2 - the Director of Higher Education, State of Maharashtra on 1^st October, 2014. The respondent No.2, on 10^th June, 2015 i.e. after a period of almost nine months, granted permission for appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant, Class – III, in the establishment of respondent No.4 - University from the date of issuance of said letter dated 10^th June, 2015. Though, the respondent No.2 had granted such permission for appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant, the respondent No.4, for the reasons stated in the following paras, appointed the petitioner on fixed pay basis vide order dated 25^th May, 2016. The aforesaid appointment on fixed pay basis was revised from time to time and even today, the petitioner continues to be in service on fixed pay basis in the establishment of respondent No.4 – University.

¶29

3.3. On 19^th March, 2022, the respondent No.4 submitted a proposal to respondent No.3 pointing out that in the year 2015, the compassionate appointment could not be given to the petitioner as no post was available and now when the post became available, the petitioner had crossed the upper age limit of 45 years. Hence, a

¶30

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶31

4

¶32

proposal for condonation of the upper age limit was submitted. The aforesaid proposal for condoning the upper age limit was forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, which was ultimately forwarded to respondent No.1. The respondent No.1, vide the impugned communication dated 7^th August, 2024, rejected the proposal for relaxation of the upper age limit. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶33

Shri. B. G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner,

¶34

submits that the entitlement of petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate basis has been accepted by all the respondents. However, the sole ground for denial of regular appointment is that the petitioner has crossed the age of 45 years. He submits that the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 3^rd October, 2013, i.e. immediately within a period of 29 days from the death of her husband on 5^th September, 2013, and on that date, she was 37 years old, which was well within the prescribed age limit. It is submitted that due to the delay caused entirely by the respondents in processing the proposal, the petitioner became over-aged, and therefore, she deserves indulgence of this Court.

¶35

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶36

5

¶37

As the issue involved in the present writ petition is the same as that in Writ Petition No.4845 of 2025 (Smt. Shivkanta Bharatbhushan Bhaware .vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and Others), Ms. B. A. Abhyankar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 - University, who has appeared and filed a reply dated 24^th November, 2025 on behalf of respondent No.4 in the above referred writ petition, has adopted the same reply in the present writ petition. She submits that the entitlement of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Junior Assistant Class - III, on compassionate basis is not disputed and that the permission for such appointment was granted by respondent No.2 on 10^th June, 2015. She further submits that upon the retirement of the other employees, such vacant post is available and respondent No.4 is ready to grant appointment on the regular basis to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 had also submitted the proposal for condonation of the upper age limit to the respondent No.3.

¶38

After hearing both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner had immediately applied within a period of 29 days from the death of her husband to the respondent No.4 for grant of appointment on compassionate basis. The husband of the petitioner had expired on 5^th September, 2013. The petitioner’s application dated 3^rd October, 2013 is at record page

¶39

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶40

6

¶41

No.31 (Annexure - P-1). On the date of application, she was 37 years of age. The aforesaid fact is stated on oath by the petitioner in the memo of petition, which is not disputed by respondent No.4. Thus, she was completely eligible under the Government policy prescribing an upper age limit of 45 years.

¶42

A perusal of the communications between the respondent Nos.1 to 4 reveals that the period of almost 21 months was consumed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 for granting approval to the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The fact further remains that the respondent No.2, vide communication dated 10^th June, 2015, had granted permission for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis and while doing so, had considered the age of the petitioner as on the date of the application. The respondent No.2, vide communication dated 10^th June, 2015, had directed that the petitioner be appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate basis. However, for the reasons stated by the respondent No.4 in its reply, the aforesaid appointment on the regular basis could not be given to the petitioner.

¶43

Ms. Abhyankar, learned counsel, has invited our attention to her reply wherein, she has stated the circumstances under which, despite the petitioner being eligible and permission having been granted, she could not be appointed on regular basis

¶44

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶45

7

¶46

due to non-availability of a post. She submits that the permission for compassionate appointment was granted by respondent No.2 on 10^th June, 2015. However, no vacant post for Junior Assistant was available under the direct recruitment quota and therefore, the petitioner could not be granted regular appointment.

¶47

It is pertinent to note that in the establishment of the University, a total of 146 posts of Junior Assistant are sanctioned. Pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 14^th January, 2016, whereby posts were upgraded from Group-D to Group-C, the promotion quota was increased from 25% to 50%. Consequently, out of the total 146 posts, 73 posts were earmarked for direct recruitment and 73 posts promotion. However, prior to the said Government Resolution, 75% posts i.e. 109 posts, were under the direct recruitment quota and 36 posts were under the promotion quota and candidates had already been appointed against those posts. By virtue of the Government Resolution dated 14^th January, 2016, the rescheduling of Junior Assistant posts under the direct recruitment quota resulted in the creation of supernumerary posts, and the vacant posts in the direct recruitment cadre were consequently brought under the promotion quota. As a result, no vacant post remained available under the direct recruitment quota. In view of the above, although the petitioner was otherwise eligible

¶48

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶49

8

¶50

for compassionate appointment, such appointment could not be granted owing to the non-availability of a vacant post.

¶51

Thus, it is evident from the record that the petitioner could not be granted appointment on a regular basis as no vacant post was available under the direct recruitment quota. However, the fact remains that the respondent No.4 had appointed the petitioner on daily-wage basis under the category of compassionate appointment vide office order dated 25^th May, 2016, which is at record page No.40 (Annexure – P-6). The aforesaid appointment on daily-wage basis was further continued vide another office order dated 10^th August, 2017, which is at record page No.42 (Annexure - P-7).

¶52

The petitioner had made a statement on oath that she continues to be in service even today on daily-wage basis in the establishment of respondent No.4 - University. Thus, in our considered opinion, the petitioner was already appointed on compassionate basis on 25^th May, 2016, though on daily-wage basis,

¶53

as no vacant post was available. The petitioner has been continuously working on the said post in the establishment of respondent No.4 - University. Thus, the provisions as referred to by the respondent No.1 pertaining to the upper age limit would not be

¶54

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶55

9

¶56

applicable in the case of the present petitioner, as held in the impugned communication dated 7^th August, 2024. The appointment of the petitioner cannot be construed as a fresh appointment, as the petitioner was already appointed on daily-wage basis on 25^th May, 2016 and is continued as such in the establishment of respondent No.4. It is only because of a technical reason that is for want of a vacant post that the petitioner could not be appointed on a regular basis. As soon as a vacant post became available, respondent No.4 on 19^th March, 2022, submitted the proposal to respondent No.3 seeking condonation of the upper age limit for the petitioner.

¶57

In our considered opinion, the petitioner was already appointed on 25^th May, 2016, in pursuance of the permission granted by the respondent No.2 on 10^th June, 2015, but only on daily-wage basis for want of a vacant post. Therefore, respondent No.4 was only required to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant, Class – III, from the date on which such post had become vacant. Thus, the impugned communication dated 7^th August, 2024 issued by the respondent No.1 on the premise that the petitioner is being appointed a-fresh is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶58

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶59

10

¶60

The petitioner has completed more than ten years of continuous service on daily wage basis on the establishment of respondent No.4 since the year 2016. Shri. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed if the services of the petitioner are regularized on the post of Junior Assistant, Class – III, from the date on which the such post became vacant on the establishment of respondent No.4 – University.

¶61

Thus, in our considered opinion, respondent No. 4 - University, in compliance with the policy of compassionate appointment, had rightly appointed the present petitioner on a daily-wage basis vide appointment order dated 25^th May, 2016. The proposal submitted by respondent No.4 - University for appointment on compassionate basis was pending with the respondents/authorities and hence, the respondent No.4 - University, in order to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family of its deceased employee, had appointed the present petitioner on a daily-wage basis w.e.f. 25^th May, 2016.

¶62

Respondent No.2 - Director of Higher Education, vide its order dated 10^th June, 2015, had permitted the respondent No.4 to appoint the petitioner as a Junior Assistant on

¶63

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶64

11

¶65

compassionate basis. However, a regular appointment order could not be issued to the petitioner for want of a vacant post of Junior Assistant in the establishment of respondent No.4. The sole purpose of appointing a family member of deceased employee is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. Thus, in the present case, if the impugned communication dated 7^th August, 2024, issued by respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra, is not quashed and set aside and if respondent No.4 is not permitted to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant, Class - III on compassionate grounds, such action would result in putting back the petitioner and her minor son to the same situation as on 5^th September, 2013, i.e., the day on which the sole breadwinner of the family, Shri. Prakash Shankarrao Dhote, had expired.

¶66

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while considering the delay at the behest of the employers in deciding applications for compassionate appointment, has observed in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa , reported in (2024) 15 SCC 766 , as follows:

¶67

“ 14. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds, i.e. a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death

¶68

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶69

12

¶70

of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications.

¶71

We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the High Courts concerned seeking a writ of mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case.

¶72

If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved. ”

¶73

J WP-7042-2025.odt

¶74

13

¶75

In our considered opinion, the present case of the petitioner squarely falls within the description of the situation described by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra). The petitioner, on the date of application for grant of compassionate appointment i.e. on 3^rd October, 2013, was 37 years old and was well within the prescribed upper age limit. It is only because of the delay caused by the respondents in deciding her entitlement and granting permission for appointment on compassionate basis that she has now crossed the upper age limit of 45 years. It is worth to mention here that the petitioner had studied upto 12^th standard but had not cleared the examination of the same. The appointment sought to be made by respondent No.4 is not a backdoor entry and is being made by respondent No.4 after fulfilling the norms and policy laid down by the State governing compassionate appointments. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and considering the object and purpose of compassionate appointment as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in several cases, the present writ petition, in our considered opinion, deserves to be allowed.

¶76

In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition in the following terms:

J WP-7042-2025.odt

14

O R D E R

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶81

ii) The impugned communication dated 7^th August, 2024, issued by respondent No.1 and the consequential communication dated 26^th August, 2024, issued by respondent No.4, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶82

iii) The respondent No.4 is directed to grant regular appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant, Class - III on compassionate ground in regular pay scale w.e.f. the date on which such post had become vacant with all consequential benefits.

¶83

iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by respondent No.4 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order.

¶84

The writ petition stands disposed of , in the above terms. No order as to costs. Rule accordingly.

¶85

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶86

TAMBE

¶87

Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/02/2026 12:22:25

Smt. Savita Prakash Dhote v. State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Savita Prakash Dhote v. State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Higher and Technical Education Department, 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

Raju Govinda Asutkar and Another vs Western Coalfields Limited (Wcl), the. Chairman and Managing Director, Nagpur and Anr.

Neha W/O Rajnesh Naidu (Joshi) vs Rajnesh S/O Rajendrapal Naidu

Rakesh S/O Anandrao Kutemate and Another vs the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Ganesh S/O Ramchandra Lade vs the Collector, Akola and Others

Tulshiram Fakruji Bothale vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Jiwan S/O Hirasing Tekam and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.