Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nikhil Maruti Gosarade, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 25 June 2018, which rejected his Original Application No. 70 of 2018. The tribunal had confirmed the order of the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) dated 13 November 2017, rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on a Class III post. The petitioner's father, Maruti Ganpat Gosarade, entered State Government service in 1985 as a Clerk in the Office of District Collector at Sangli. By an order dated 11 June 2013, he was granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Election Naib Tahsildar (a Group B post) and posted at Mangalweda, District Solapur. He died in harness on 7 December 2016 due to an accident. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, but the authorities rejected it on the ground that the father's promotion was ad-hoc and not confirmed, and thus the petitioner was not eligible under the compassionate appointment scheme. The tribunal upheld this rejection. The High Court considered the moot question whether the petitioner could maintain an application for compassionate appointment when his deceased father was an ad-hoc promotee to a Group B post and whose promotion was never confirmed. The court held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and the scheme applies only to regular employees. Since the father's promotion was ad-hoc and he died before confirmation, his substantive post remained Clerk (Class III). However, the compassionate appointment scheme for Class III posts was not applicable as the father was not a regular employee in that post. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Ad-hoc Promotee - The petitioner's father was granted ad-hoc promotion to Group B post (Election Naib Tahsildar) but was never confirmed. The court held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the scheme applies only to regular employees. Since the father's promotion was ad-hoc and not confirmed, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment on a Class III post. (Paras 1-28) B) Service Law - Ad-hoc Promotion - Confirmation - An ad-hoc promotee does not acquire a right to the promoted post unless confirmed. The father's service as Election Naib Tahsildar was ad-hoc and he died before confirmation. Therefore, his substantive post remained Clerk (Class III), but the compassionate appointment scheme for Class III posts was not applicable as the father was not a regular employee in that post. (Paras 3-28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner could maintain an application for appointment on compassionate ground when his deceased father was an ad-hoc promotee to a Group B post and whose promotion was never confirmed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 25 June 2018, which rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Ad-hoc promotion
- Confirmation of promotion
- Group B post
- Class III post
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
- Writ jurisdiction
