Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, all compassionate appointees working with Panchayat Samiti, Palghar, Zilla Parishad, Palghar, challenged identical impugned orders dated 16 January 2025 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Palghar, refusing to regularize their appointments on the ground of delay in filing applications. The petitioners' parents had died between 2002 and 2009, and the petitioners applied for compassionate appointment with delays ranging from one day to one year and three months. They were appointed on 21 February 2017. The Zilla Parishad argued that the delay was admitted and the impugned orders were strictly as per rules. The court noted that the Government Resolution dated 23 August 1996 and Government Circular dated 5 February 2010 require the employer to inform the bereaved family about compassionate appointment and assist in documentation. Relying on Roshan Vitthal Kale v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 (3) Mh.L.J. 470, the court held that failure to assist the family justifies granting benefit. Additionally, citing Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684, the court observed that applications must be decided within six months; keeping them pending for 8 to 15 years cannot prejudice the petitioners. The court concluded that the petitioners, after 8 years of service, cannot be thrown out of employment. The writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders quashed, and the Zilla Parishad directed to regularize the appointments with all benefits.
Headnote
A) Compassionate Appointment - Delay in Application - Employer's Duty to Inform - Government Resolution dated 23.08.1996 and Government Circular dated 05.02.2010 - The court held that the employer is obligated to inform the bereaved family about the opportunity of compassionate appointment and assist in documentation. Delay caused by lack of such assistance cannot be held against the applicant. (Paras 6-8)
B) Compassionate Appointment - Pendency of Application - Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684 - The court held that applications for compassionate appointment must be decided within six months; keeping them pending for 8 to 15 years cannot prejudice the applicant's rights. (Para 11)
C) Compassionate Appointment - Regularization - Peculiar Facts - The court held that compassionate appointees who have worked for 8 years cannot be thrown out of employment due to delay in application when the employer failed to assist and delayed decision-making. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the refusal to regularize compassionate appointments on the ground of delay in application is sustainable when the employer failed to inform and assist the bereaved family as per government instructions, and when the applications were kept pending for years.
Final Decision
Writ petitions allowed. Impugned orders dated 16.01.2025 quashed and set aside. Zilla Parishad directed to record that the appointments of the petitioners shall be regularized and they shall be entitled to all benefits as available to regularized employees.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- delay in application
- employer's duty to inform
- regularization
- Government Resolution 23.08.1996
- Government Circular 05.02.2010
- Roshan Vitthal Kale v. State of Maharashtra
- Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (3) 41
Writ Petition No. 3068 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 3069 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 3070 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 3071 of 2025
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Ashwin D. Bhobe
Mr. Vikram Walawalkar a/w Mr. Amey Sawant (for Petitioner), Mr. Ajit M. Savagave a/w Ms. Samruddhi Kulkarni (for Respondent No.1/Z.P.), Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP (for Respondent No.4/State in WP/3068/2025), Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP (for Respondent No.4/State in WP/3069/2025), Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP (for Respondent No.4/State in WP/3070/2025), Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP (for Respondent No.4/State in WP/3071/2025)
Ajay Ganesh Shirodkar, Ashok Kashinath Pilena, Ajay Santosh Bhavari, Ajay Ramesh Lahange
The Zilla Parishad, Palghar & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders refusing to regularize compassionate appointments on ground of delay.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of impugned orders and direction to regularize appointments with all benefits.
Filing Reason
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Palghar passed orders dated 16.01.2025 refusing to regularize the petitioners' compassionate appointments citing delay in filing applications.
Issues
Whether the refusal to regularize compassionate appointments on ground of delay is sustainable when the employer failed to inform and assist the bereaved family as per government instructions.
Whether the pendency of applications for 8 to 15 years can be held against the applicants.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: The delay was minimal (one day to one year three months) and the employer failed to inform and assist them as per government instructions; applications were kept pending for years.
Respondent/Zilla Parishad: The delay is admitted and the impugned orders are strictly as per rules; petitions deserve dismissal with heavy costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The employer's failure to inform and assist the bereaved family as per Government Resolution dated 23.08.1996 and Government Circular dated 05.02.2010, and the inordinate pendency of applications for 8 to 15 years, cannot be held against the compassionate appointees. A pragmatic approach must be adopted instead of a pedantic one, and the appointees who have worked for 8 years cannot be thrown out of employment.
Judgment Excerpts
We are, however, interfering with the impugned orders on the following grounds :- (a) These Petitioners are from the Class-IV categories. They were not apprised of the limitation by any officer of the department and there was no assistance in preparation of the proposals for their submission within the limitation period.
The delay caused by the department between 8 years to 15 years, in passing orders on these applications would not truncate the rights of these Petitioners, rather has made them suffer the rigours of delay.
Taking a holistic view of these factors, we conclude that these Petitioners, after 8 years of being in compassionate appointment, can not be thrown out of Employment.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court challenging identical orders dated 16.01.2025 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Palghar, refusing to regularize their compassionate appointments. The court heard the matters and delivered final order on 04.03.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Government Resolution dated 23.08.1996:
- Government Circular dated 05.02.2010:
- Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017: Clause 7(a)
