Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 23rd January 2020. The Tribunal had allowed the Original Application filed by the respondents, Smt. Chhaya Vishwas Bhosale and her son Abhijeet Vishwas Bhosale, directing the State to consider their application for compassionate appointment. The background is that the husband of respondent no.1 died in harness on 6th September 2005 while working as a Class IV employee. Within eight months, on 17th May 2006, respondent no.1 applied for compassionate appointment for her son, who was then a minor. This application was rejected on 16th June 2006 on the ground of minority. Subsequently, on 31st August 2006, respondent no.1 applied for herself and was placed on a waiting list at serial no.50. On 2nd June 2014, the State informed respondent no.1 that her name was deleted from the waiting list because, as per the Government Resolution dated 22nd August 2005, a dependent cannot be considered if the person has completed 40 years of age, and respondent no.1 had turned 40 on 5th October 2009. On 19th May 2015, respondent no.1 requested substitution of her son in the waiting list. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing the State to consider the son's application. The State challenged this order. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the Tribunal erred in directing consideration of the application after the age limit was crossed and that substitution of a different dependent is not permissible under the Government Resolution. The Court allowed the petition and set aside the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Age Limit - Government Resolution dated 22nd August 2005 - The issue was whether the Tribunal could direct consideration of compassionate appointment after the applicant had crossed the age limit of 40 years. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing consideration as the respondent-wife had crossed the age limit and the substitution of her son was not permissible under the Government Resolution. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Substitution of Dependent - The issue was whether a different dependent can be substituted after the initial application was rejected. The Court held that substitution is not permissible under the Government Resolution dated 22nd August 2005, and the Tribunal's direction to consider the son's application was without jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was correct in directing the State to consider the application for compassionate appointment of the respondent-wife and subsequently substituting her son, despite the wife having crossed the age limit of 40 years as per the Government Resolution dated 22nd August 2005.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 23rd January 2020 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.863 of 2017.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- age limit
- substitution of dependent
- waiting list
- Government Resolution
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
- Article 226
- Article 227
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 147
Writ Petition No.11525 of 2022
A. S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain
Mrs. Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Petitioner (State); Mr. Gaurav A. Bandiwadekar i/b. Mr. Bhushan A. Bandiwadekar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Water Resources Department, and The Superintending Engineer & Administrator, Command Area Development Authority, Nasik
Smt. Chhaya Vishwas Bhosale and Shri. Abhijeet Vishwas Bhosale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal directing consideration of compassionate appointment.
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought to quash and set aside the order dated 23rd January 2020 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.863 of 2017.
Filing Reason
The State challenged the Tribunal's order which directed them to consider the application for compassionate appointment of the respondents despite the age limit and substitution issues.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application No.863 of 2017 filed by the respondents, directing the State to consider the application for compassionate appointment.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing consideration of compassionate appointment after the applicant had crossed the age limit of 40 years as per the Government Resolution dated 22nd August 2005.
Whether substitution of a different dependent (son) after the initial application was rejected is permissible under the Government Resolution.
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the respondent-wife had crossed the age limit of 40 years and therefore could not be considered for compassionate appointment as per the Government Resolution dated 22nd August 2005.
The State argued that substitution of the son in place of the wife was not permissible under the Government Resolution.
The respondents argued that the Tribunal correctly directed consideration of the application for compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing consideration of compassionate appointment after the dependent had crossed the age limit of 40 years as per the Government Resolution dated 22nd August 2005. Further, substitution of a different dependent after rejection of the initial application is not permissible under the said Government Resolution.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-State seeks to challenge the order dated 23rd January 2020, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal...
The Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing consideration of compassionate appointment after the dependent had crossed the age limit and that substitution of a different dependent after rejection is not permissible under the Government Resolution of 22nd August 2005.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Original Application No.863 of 2017 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed on 23rd January 2020. The State then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was heard on 14th February 2024 and judgment pronounced on 23rd February 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
