Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Dattatraya Sukdeo Chitte, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a communication dated 24th August 2005 issued by the State of Maharashtra (respondent No.1) to the Divisional Commissioner (respondent No.2) cancelling his appointment as Extension Officer and directing his reappointment as Tracer, along with recovery of benefits. The petitioner's father, who was a Head Master in the Zilla Parishad, died on 17th April 2003. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and was initially appointed as Tracer on 18th October 1995. He worked as Tracer for about two years. Subsequently, on 23rd July 1997, he was appointed as Extension Officer by the Zilla Parishad. The State Government, by the impugned communication, cancelled this appointment, claiming it was in contravention of rules and principles of the compassionate appointment scheme. The petitioner sought quashing of this communication. The court considered the submissions of both sides. The petitioner argued that he was eligible for the Extension Officer post and that the Zilla Parishad had exercised its discretion. The State contended that the reappointment was irregular. The court held that the Zilla Parishad had the authority to make compassionate appointments and that the petitioner had worked as Extension Officer for eight years without any objection. The court found the impugned communication illegal and set it aside, directing that the petitioner be continued as Extension Officer with all consequential benefits. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Cancellation of Appointment - The State Government's communication cancelling the petitioner's appointment as Extension Officer and directing reappointment as Tracer was quashed as the Zilla Parishad had the authority to appoint on compassionate grounds and the petitioner had worked for eight years without objection. Held that the impugned communication was illegal and set aside (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government's communication dated 24th August 2005 cancelling the petitioner's appointment as Extension Officer and directing reappointment as Tracer with recovery of benefits was legal and valid.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 24th August 2005 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be continued as Extension Officer with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Extension Officer
- Tracer
- Cancellation of appointment
- Recovery of benefits
- Government communication
- Zilla Parishad
- Discretionary power
