Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishal s/o Vijaysingh Thakur, filed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment following the death of his father on 18.02.2007. His elder brother, Vikesh, initially applied for compassionate appointment and was placed on the eligibility list. However, on 04.07.2014, Vikesh submitted an application and affidavit stating he did not wish to take up employment and requested that his younger brother, Vishal, be substituted in his place. The respondent employer rejected this request citing Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015, which prohibits substitution of one candidate by another. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court. The court noted that the father died in 2007, and the petitioner sought appointment after 15 years and 9 months, which defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family in distress. The court also relied on the decision in Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. 381, which upheld the validity of the Government Resolution prohibiting substitution. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment due to the inordinate delay and the prohibition on substitution.
Headnote
A) Compassionate Appointment - Delay - Claim after 15 years and 9 months - The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after his father's death in 2007, but the claim was made in 2022. The court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after such a long delay, as the purpose is to provide immediate financial relief to the family in distress. (Paras 1-5)
B) Compassionate Appointment - Substitution of Candidate - Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 - The original applicant (elder brother) sought to substitute the petitioner in his place. The court held that the Government Resolution prohibits substitution of one candidate by another, and this was upheld in Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. 381. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment after a delay of 15 years and 9 months from the date of death of the government servant, and whether substitution of the original applicant by another family member is permissible under the Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment due to the inordinate delay of 15 years and 9 months and the prohibition on substitution under Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- delay in claim
- substitution of candidate
- Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015
- Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane v. State of Maharashtra
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (11) 21
WRIT PETITION NO.7933 OF 2022
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, SANJAY A. DESHMUKH
Mr. Gunale V.D. for Petitioner, Mr. P.S. Patil AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 & 5, Mr. P.R. Tandale for Respondent No.4
Vishal s/o Vijaysingh Thakur
The State of Maharashtra, The Collector Latur, The Deputy Director Ground Water Survey and Development Mechanism, The Deputy Engineer Mechanical Sub Division Zilla Parishad Latur, The Residential Deputy Collector Latur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks compassionate appointment on the ground that his father died in harness and his elder brother who was originally eligible has relinquished his claim in favor of the petitioner.
Filing Reason
The respondent employer rejected the petitioner's request for substitution as the eligible candidate for compassionate appointment citing Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 which prohibits substitution.
Previous Decisions
The original applicant Vikesh applied for compassionate appointment and was enlisted, but later filed an application dated 04.07.2014 stating he does not desire employment and requesting substitution of the petitioner. The employer rejected this request.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment after a delay of 15 years and 9 months from the date of death of the government servant?
Whether substitution of the original applicant by another family member is permissible under the Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his elder brother Vikesh relinquished his claim and requested substitution of the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner should be granted compassionate appointment.
Respondents argued that the Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 prohibits substitution of one candidate by another, and the claim is highly belated.
Ratio Decidendi
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after a long delay as it defeats the purpose of providing immediate financial relief. Substitution of one eligible candidate by another is prohibited by Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015, which has been upheld by this court in Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane v. State of Maharashtra.
Judgment Excerpts
This is a case wherein the petitioner, who is said to be the younger brother of original applicant Vikesh, desires compassionate appointment after 15 years and 9 months.
The application filed by Vikesh was not entertained by the respondent employer of the deceased father on the ground that Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015, prohibits the substitution of one candidate by another candidate.
The said Government Resolution was taken up in challenge before this court, by Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. 381.
Procedural History
The father of the petitioner died on 18.02.2007. The elder brother Vikesh applied for compassionate appointment and was enlisted. On 04.07.2014, Vikesh filed an application and affidavit stating he does not desire employment and requesting substitution of the petitioner. The employer rejected the request citing Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
