Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Manisha Dnyneshwar Londhe, is the widow of Dnyneshwar Sakharam Londhe, who was employed as a Peon at Respondent No. 5 School and died in service on 22 September 2015. She applied for compassionate appointment on 1 December 2015 and 8 December 2015. The management considered her applications in a meeting on 2 October 2016 and resolved to appoint her on compassionate basis. She was appointed as a Peon on 10 June 2016 and joined duties on 15 June 2016. The proposal was forwarded to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune on 29 January 2018, and re-submitted on 27 June 2019. Despite several representations, no approval was granted. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Education Officer placed on record a letter dated 13 March 2018 refusing approval, citing Government Resolution dated 22 March 2012. The court noted that the appointment was made by the management prior to the resolution and the petitioner had already joined service. The court held that the refusal was unjustified and directed the Education Officer to approve the appointment within four weeks. The court also noted that the petitioner had been working continuously and was entitled to salary from the date of joining.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Government Resolution - The court considered whether the Education Officer could refuse approval to a compassionate appointment made by the school management based on a Government Resolution dated 22 March 2012, when the appointment was made prior to the resolution and the petitioner had already joined service. Held that the refusal was unjustified as the appointment was made before the resolution and the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of approval. (Paras 2-10)
B) Service Law - Delay in Approval - Estoppel - The court examined the effect of the Education Officer's delay in communicating the refusal for over three years, during which the petitioner continued to work. Held that the delay and the petitioner's continued service created an estoppel against the respondent, preventing them from denying approval. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer's refusal to approve the compassionate appointment of the petitioner, based on a Government Resolution dated 22 March 2012, was justified when the appointment was made by the management prior to the resolution and the petitioner had already joined service.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Education Officer's letter dated 13 March 2018 refusing approval, and directed the Education Officer to approve the petitioner's compassionate appointment within four weeks. The court also directed that the petitioner be paid salary from the date of her joining i.e., 15 June 2016.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Government Resolution
- Delay in approval
- Estoppel
- Legitimate expectation
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 31
WRIT PETITION NO. 2619 OF 2021
R.D. Dhanuka, R. N. Laddha
Mr. Mahadeo Baburao Ghule for Petitioner, Ms. P. J. Gavhane for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Ms. Ranjana Todankar for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5
Smt. Manisha Dnyneshwar Londhe
The State of Maharashtra, Deputy Director of Education, Education Officer, Shri Parmarthik Seva Sangh Mumbai, Shri Sangameshwar Secondary & Baburao Genuji Dhoble Higher Secondary School
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the refusal of the Education Officer to approve compassionate appointment of the petitioner as Peon in a school.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Education Officer to approve her compassionate appointment and pay her salary from the date of joining.
Filing Reason
The Education Officer refused to approve the compassionate appointment of the petitioner citing Government Resolution dated 22 March 2012, despite the management having appointed her prior to the resolution and she having joined service.
Previous Decisions
The Education Officer had refused approval by letter dated 13 March 2018, which was placed on record during the pendency of the petition.
Issues
Whether the Education Officer's refusal to approve the compassionate appointment based on Government Resolution dated 22 March 2012 was justified when the appointment was made prior to the resolution.
Whether the delay in communicating the refusal and the petitioner's continued service created an estoppel against the respondent.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that she was appointed on compassionate basis by the management on 10 June 2016 and joined on 15 June 2016, prior to the Government Resolution dated 22 March 2012, and the Education Officer's refusal was unjustified.
The respondent Education Officer argued that the appointment could not be approved as per Government Resolution dated 22 March 2012.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the compassionate appointment made by the management prior to the Government Resolution dated 22 March 2012 could not be refused approval based on that resolution. The delay in communicating the refusal and the petitioner's continued service created an estoppel, and the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of approval.
Judgment Excerpts
The husband of the Petitioner namely Dnyneshwar Sakharam Londhe, was a 'Peon', working with the Respondent No. 5-School and passed away, while he was in service, on 22 September, 2015, leaving behind father, 4 children and his widow-the Petitioner.
The Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 1 December, 2015 and 8 December, 2015.
The Education Officer by this letter had already refused to accord approval to the compassionate appointment of the Petitioner, stating therein that as per Government Resolution dated 22 March, 2012.
Procedural History
The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in December 2015. The management appointed her on 10 June 2016 and she joined on 15 June 2016. The proposal was forwarded to the Education Officer on 29 January 2018 and re-submitted on 27 June 2019. No approval was granted. The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2021. During pendency, the Education Officer placed on record a letter dated 13 March 2018 refusing approval. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 19 January 2022.
