Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Compassionate Appointment for Dependents of Deceased Contractual Employee. Contractual employment does not confer a right to compassionate appointment under the Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company's policy.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 8
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Vinod Kadubal Rathod and Nivrutti Ramsing Rathod, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Co. Ltd., to appoint them on compassionate grounds following the death of their father, who was a contractual employee of the company. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to compassionate appointment as per the company's policy. The respondent opposed the petition, contending that compassionate appointment is only available to dependents of regular employees and not contractual employees. The court, after hearing both sides, held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is an exception to the general rule of public employment. It is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee who was a regular employee. Since the petitioners' father was a contractual employee, they were not entitled to compassionate appointment. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claim.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Contractual Employee - The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent company to appoint them on compassionate grounds after the death of their father, who was a contractual employee. The court held that compassionate appointment is not a right and is only available to dependents of regular employees, not contractual employees. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners, being dependents of a deceased contractual employee, are entitled to compassionate appointment under the respondent company's policy.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Compassionate appointment
  • Contractual employment
  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • No right to compassionate appointment for dependents of contractual employees
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 14

Writ Petition No.981 of 2018

2018-12-19

S.S. Shinde, K.K. Sonawane

Mr. Ganesh R. Jadhav for Petitioners, Mr. S.M. Godsay for Respondent

Vinod Kadubal Rathod and Nivrutti Ramsing Rathod

Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Co. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for compassionate appointment.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought direction to respondent company to appoint them on compassionate grounds.

Filing Reason

Death of petitioners' father who was a contractual employee of the respondent company.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to compassionate appointment as dependents of a deceased contractual employee.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they are entitled to compassionate appointment under the respondent's policy. Respondent contended that compassionate appointment is only for dependents of regular employees, not contractual employees.

Ratio Decidendi

Compassionate appointment is not a right and is only available to dependents of regular employees, not contractual employees. The court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to direct compassionate appointment for dependents of contractual employees.

Judgment Excerpts

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with following substantive prayer: 'B. By issuing writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the like nature, the respondent company be directed to appoint the petitioners on compassionate ground.' The court held that compassionate appointment is not a right and is only available to dependents of regular employees, not contractual employees.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date, heard finally with consent of counsel, and judgment reserved on 24th November 2018 and pronounced on 19th December 2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Compassionate Appointment for Dependents of Deceased Contractual Employee. Contractual employment does not confer a right to compassionate appointment under the Maharashtra State Electricity Generatio...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition for Entertainment License for Orchestra in Restaurant, Quashes Rejection Based on Unsubstantiated Police Objections. The court held that the Commissioner of Police cannot reject an entertainment license application s...