Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dnyaneshwar Musane, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. His father, a primary teacher, died in harness on 06.09.2005 when the petitioner was about 6 years old. The petitioner's mother applied for compassionate appointment and her name was included in the waiting list. However, the grandparents objected, and in a hearing in 2013, the mother relinquished her claim in favor of the petitioner, who was then still a minor. After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 18.06.2015. The respondent No.2 rejected the application on the ground that the mother's name was included in the list and she had relinquished her claim, and that the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's death. The High Court examined the Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 governing compassionate appointments. The court held that the GR does not prohibit a minor from claiming appointment after attaining majority, and the mother's relinquishment does not bar the son's claim. The court found that the petitioner's application was made within a reasonable time after attaining majority. The court set aside the rejection order and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application afresh in accordance with the GR and law, within three months. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Compassionate Appointment - Minor's Claim - Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 - Petitioner's father died in 2005; mother applied but later relinquished claim; petitioner applied after attaining majority in 2015 - Application rejected on ground that mother's name was included in list and she relinquished, and that petitioner was minor at time of death - Held that the GR does not bar a minor from claiming appointment after attaining majority, and the mother's relinquishment does not extinguish the son's right - Petition allowed (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment after his mother relinquished her claim and he applied after attaining majority, despite the delay.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with the Government Resolution and law, within three months from the date of the order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Government Resolution
- minor's claim
- delay condonation
- mother's relinquishment
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (03) 16
Writ Petition No. 6267 of 2018
Mr. Avinash M. Reddy a/w Mr. Satish Bhosale h/f Mr. V.D. Gunale for Petitioner, Mr. S.R. Yadav, AGP for Respondent/State, Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar for Respondent No.2
Dnyaneshwar s/o Ramkishan Musane
The State of Maharashtra, The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of compassionate appointment application.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of rejection order and direction to appoint him on compassionate ground.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's father died in harness; mother's claim relinquished; petitioner applied after majority but was rejected.
Previous Decisions
Application rejected by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment despite his mother having relinquished her claim?
Whether the petitioner's application made after attaining majority is maintainable under the Government Resolution?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Government Resolution does not bar a minor from claiming appointment after attaining majority, and the mother's relinquishment does not extinguish his right.
Respondents argued that the mother's name was included in the list and she relinquished, and the petitioner was minor at the time of death.
Ratio Decidendi
The Government Resolution does not prohibit a minor from claiming compassionate appointment after attaining majority. The mother's relinquishment of her claim does not bar the son's claim. The application made after attaining majority is within reasonable time.
Judgment Excerpts
Undisputedly, the father of the petitioner was working as primary teacher with the Zilla Parishad, Parbhani as a confirmed employee and while in employment, he died on 06.09.2005.
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad conducted hearing in 2013. At the time of hearing, mother of the petitioner gave up her claim for appointment on compassionate ground and requested that petitioner be given appointment on compassionate ground.
On becoming major, the petitioner submitted fresh application on 18.06.2015 seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
The Government Resolution does not prohibit a minor from claiming appointment on compassionate ground after attaining majority.
Procedural History
Father died on 06.09.2005. Mother applied for compassionate appointment; her name included in list. In 2013, mother relinquished claim in favor of petitioner (then minor). Petitioner attained majority and applied on 18.06.2015. Application rejected by CEO. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6267 of 2018 before Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench). Heard on 11.03.2020 and allowed.
Acts & Sections
