Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Swapanali Shekhar Kalbhor (married sister of the deceased employee) and Gulabbai Kailash Sathe (mother), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Government Resolution dated 26.2.2013 issued by the State of Maharashtra. The resolution laid down a policy for compassionate appointment, which excluded married sisters from being considered as dependents eligible for such appointment. The petitioners sought a declaration that the policy was violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, and sought a direction to consider the appointment of petitioner No.1 on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased brother Sachin Kailash Sathe, who died while in service of the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The court examined the object of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the crisis. The court held that the classification between married and unmarried sisters is arbitrary and has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The court noted that the dependency of the family on the deceased employee is the relevant criterion, and marital status of a sister does not affect the dependency of other family members. The court quashed the impugned decision dated 22nd November, 2013, which rejected the petitioner's claim based on the resolution, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner No.1's application for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with law, without applying the discriminatory condition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Discrimination on Ground of Marital Status - Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution of India - Government Resolution dated 26.2.2013 excluded married sisters from compassionate appointment - Petitioners challenged the policy as arbitrary and discriminatory - Court held that the classification based on marital status is not reasonable and has no nexus with the object of providing immediate relief to the family of the deceased - The policy was struck down as unconstitutional (Paras 1-34).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the policy of the State Government as reflected in Government Resolution dated 26.2.2013, which excludes married sisters from consideration for compassionate appointment, is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition. It declared that the policy of the respondents as reflected in Government Resolution dated 26.2.2013, insofar as it excludes married sisters from consideration for compassionate appointment, is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court quashed and set aside the decision dated 22nd November, 2013 of the third respondent. The court directed the respondents to consider the application of petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment afresh in accordance with law, without applying the condition that married sisters are not eligible.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- married sister
- discrimination
- Articles 14
- 15
- 16
- Government Resolution
- dependent
- legal heirs
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 94
WRIT PETITION NO. 7797 OF 2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre
Mr. Vijayprakash Yadav for the Petitioners, Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP, for the Respondent No.1-State, Mr. G.H. Keluskar for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3
Swapanali Shekhar Kalbhor and Gulabbai Kailash Sathe
State of Maharashtra, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, and The Asst. Commissioner (Admn.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the policy of the State Government regarding compassionate appointment which excludes married sisters from eligibility.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the policy in Government Resolution dated 26.2.2013 is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution; direction to quash the decision dated 22.11.2013 rejecting the petitioner's claim; and direction to consider petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' claim for compassionate appointment for petitioner No.1 (married sister of deceased employee) was rejected by the respondent authorities based on the Government Resolution dated 26.2.2013 which excludes married sisters from being considered as dependents.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Commissioner (Admn.) of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation rejected the claim of petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment vide decision dated 22nd November, 2013, relying on the Government Resolution dated 26.2.2013.
Issues
Whether the Government Resolution dated 26.2.2013, which excludes married sisters from compassionate appointment, is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for consideration of compassionate appointment for petitioner No.1?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the policy is arbitrary and discriminatory as it creates an unreasonable classification between married and unmarried sisters, which has no nexus with the object of compassionate appointment.
Respondents argued that the policy is based on a reasonable classification and is in line with the object of providing immediate relief to the family of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The classification between married and unmarried sisters for the purpose of compassionate appointment is not based on any intelligible differentia and has no rational nexus with the object of providing immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee. Such classification is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs :
Based on the above declarations and requests, the next prayer is to quash and set aside the decision dated 22nd November, 2013, of the third respondent and taken for and on behalf of the respondent No.2.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 7797 of 2014 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the Government Resolution dated 26.2.2013 and the decision dated 22.11.2013 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. The court heard both sides and passed the judgment on 11th October, 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 15, Article 16, Article 226
