Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jyoti w/o Ganesh More, is the married sister of the deceased employee, Shri Gulab Mahajan, who was employed with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). After the death of her brother, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on a post of cleaner at the MSRTC office at Chopada. The respondent No. 3, the Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Jalgaon Division, issued a communication dated 16.01.2023 refusing to consider her request on the ground that a married sister is not a dependent family member under the MSRTC Rules. The petitioner challenged this communication by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the impugned communication and directions to grant her compassionate appointment. The court considered the submissions of the petitioner's advocate, who argued that the petitioner was wholly dependent on her deceased brother and that the refusal was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution. The court analyzed the MSRTC Rules and found that the term 'dependent' should be interpreted broadly to include a married sister who was wholly dependent on the deceased employee. The court held that the impugned communication was arbitrary and discriminatory, and thus quashed and set it aside. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh, taking into account the dependency aspect, and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The writ petition was allowed in those terms.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Dependent Family Member - MSRTC Compassionate Appointment Rules - The petitioner, a married sister of a deceased MSRTC employee, sought compassionate appointment after her brother's death. The respondent refused on the ground that a married sister is not a dependent family member. The court held that the term 'dependent' must be interpreted broadly to include a married sister who was wholly dependent on the deceased employee, and that the refusal was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-7) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the impugned communication dated 16.01.2023 refusing compassionate appointment to the petitioner was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it excluded a married sister from the definition of 'dependent' without any rational basis. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a married sister of a deceased employee can be considered a 'dependent' for compassionate appointment under the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) Rules.
Final Decision
The impugned communication dated 16.01.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh, taking into account the dependency aspect, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- dependent family member
- married sister
- MSRTC compassionate appointment policy
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
