FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
rt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5609 OF 2010
"Anil s/o Bhatu Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
C
ou
Office Notes, Office
Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders.
appearances, Court's
Orders
ig
h
Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N.R. Shaikh, AGP for respondent State/Authorities i.e.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Rajendra N. Chavan, Advocate h/f. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate
for respondent NO. 3
CORAM :- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE :-
27TH JUNE, 2012.
PER COURT :1]
Heard Advocate Deshmukh, for petitioner, Advocate
ba
y
Chavan, for respondents No.3.Zilla Parishad, and AGP Shri N.R.
Shaikh, for respondent No.2.
2]
Advocate Deshmukh has contended that, Clause No.4
om
of Govt. Resolution dated 23rd August, 1996, governing grant of
compassionate employment is bad. According to him, it is selfcontradictory and in any case, compliance with it, is not
controlled by the present petitioner.
He submits that thus, it
is capable of being abused. He invites attention to para.6 of the
petition to show that 3 candidates, namely, Shivkkumar Gulab
Chavan , Manohar Vithal Bagul and Prashant Bhagwat Patil have
been directly appointed on category C post, though they were
similarly situated, after present petitioner was appointed on
compassionate basis , on a post in lower category i.e. Category
::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2015 12:11:19 :::
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
rt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5609 OF 2010
"Anil s/o Bhatu Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
C
ou
Office Notes, Office
Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders.
appearances, Court's
Orders
D. Category D represents Class IV posts , while CategoryC
include Class III posts. The facts are not in dispute.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has invited
ig
h
3]
attention to order dated 31.3.2005, by which petitioner has been
appointed on compassionate basis, against a Class IV post. He
points out that said appointment is in purely temporary capacity.
In this situation, according to him, petitioner has no right to post
and , therefore, he cannot maintain such petition.
Support is
being taken from judgment of this court dated 8.6.2010 in W.P.
ba
y
No. 2609 of 2009 and 3285 of 2009.
4]
Learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also take
om
support from very same judgment and contends that petitioner
cannot assail Government Resolution dated 28th August, 1996.
5]
The
fact
that
petitioner
has
been
provided
employment on compassionate ground is not in dispute. Thus,
his entitlement thereto, has been examined within four corners of
the scheme and then work has been provided. Even perusal of
Clause IV, which has been assailed by the petitioner before us
reveals that compassionate appointment can be provided against
existing vacancies. The petitioner has been appointed against a
clear and vacant post.
His appointment, therefore, cannot be
::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2015 12:11:19 :::
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
rt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5609 OF 2010
"Anil s/o Bhatu Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
C
ou
Office Notes, Office
Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders.
appearances, Court's
Orders
3
viewed as purely temporary.
appointment on probation.
At the most, it can be viewed as
Stipulation to the contrary, in his
6]
ig
h
order of appointment is, therefore, unsustainable.
In view of this, we are not in a position to hold that by
order dated 31.3.2005, petitioner has not been appointed on
compassionate basis. We find that petitioner has been appointed
on compassionate basis. We are not in a position to accept that
his appointment is of purely temporary nature.
Because of these findings, the judgment of this court
ba
y
7]
dated 28.6.2011 delivered in W.P. No. 3609 of 2009 and 3285 of
om
2009, is not relevant for considering the present controversy.
8]
August,
Perusal of Clause IV of Govt. Resolution dated 23rd
1996
governing
the
grant
of
employment
on
compassionate basis shows that when a dependent is eligible for
employment against a class III (Group C category ) post, he could
be considered against a Class IV (Group D category) post, if there
is no vacancy in Class III category post. However, whenever such
vacancies become available in Class III category, he needs to be
shifted to Class III category and his appointment is to be
regularized as direct recruitment. The petitioner has no objection
to this part of Clause No.4.
However, entitlement of the
::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2015 12:11:19 :::
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
C
ou
Office Notes, Office
Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders.
appearances, Court's
Orders
rt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5609 OF 2010
"Anil s/o Bhatu Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
petitioner to such shifting is made dependent upon an express
stipulation, in his order of appointment on compassionate ground.
If the order contains a stipulation that petitioner will be eligible to
ig
h
be shifted to Class III post after availability of vacancy, then only,
he becomes eligible and can be shifted.
If the order of
appointment does not contain that stipulation, he is not eligible at
9]
all.
The order of appointment is not to be drawn by a
person who is getting employment on compassionate ground.
ba
y
The petitioner, therefore, cannot be blamed for either presence
of such stipulation or its absence in his appointment order. The
appointment order dated 31.5.2003 does not contain any such
om
stipulation. If the contention of the respective counsel appearing
for the respondents is to be accepted, then, it is apparent that
while preparing or drafting appointment order, the stipulation can
be introduced at the whim & caprice of issuing authority.
The
State Government or Zilla Parishad have not filed any affidavit in
reply. Therefore, the logic behind introducing such stipulation or
condition has not come before this court.
10]
In this situation, as we find that petitioner cannot be
blamed for absence of a particular stipulation in his appointment
order,
we hold that its absence cannot be used to his prejudice.
::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2015 12:11:19 :::
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
Office Notes, Office
Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders.
appearances, Court's
Orders
5
If
persons
in
waiting
list
for
C
ou
rt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5609 OF 2010
"Anil s/o Bhatu Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
grant
of
appointment
on
compassionate ground, junior to the petitioner have been already
appointed on Class III Post, we direct respondent No.3 Zilla
ig
h
Parishad also to consider and appoint the present petitioner on
Class III post. In view of this direction, it is not necessary for us to
consider the challenge to validity of later part of Clause IV of
11]
Govt. Resolution dated 23rd August, 1996.
Accordingly, we direct respondent No.3 Zilla Parishad
to consider the entitlement of the petitioner against a vacancy in
ba
y
Class III category as per his seniority in waiting list for
appointment on compassionate ground and if he is found eligible,
grant him that post with deemed date. Necessary action in this
om
respect be completed within 3 months from today. Writ petition is
partly allowed and disposed of.
No costs. Rule made absolute
accordingly.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J.]
grt/-
[B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J]
::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2015 12:11:19 :::
