Case at a Glance
Two men appointed on compassionate grounds in 2004 and 2008, after their fathers died in service in Maharashtra’s Vocational Education and Training department, were issued show-cause notices in 2010 proposing to cancel their appointments on the ground that their fathers had held Group-B posts. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed their challenges in 2014. The Bombay High Court has set that aside, holding that the State had treated the posts as Group-B solely because of the pay scale while ignoring four later Government Resolutions that classified them as Group-C. Relying on Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 05 SC CK 0032, the Court held that confirmed appointees cannot be removed except in accordance with law, and the State cannot benefit from its own mistake.
Avinash Kondiram Wagh’s father, a junior clerk, died in service on 24 December 2001, and Avinash was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Group Instructor by order dated 1 December 2004. Abhay Chandrakant Khond’s father, a Training Officer in the pay scale ₹6,500–10,500, died in service on 7 March 2003, and Abhay was appointed as a Junior Clerk-cum-Typist on 31 January 2008. Both completed probation and continued in service.
In 2010, show-cause notices were issued to both proposing cancellation of their appointments. The State relied on a Government Resolution of 2 July 2002 and a confidential letter of 19 May 2010 from the Directorate of Vocational Education and Training, treating posts in the specified pay scales as Group-B, whose dependants were then not eligible for compassionate appointment (which was available only for Group-C and D). The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, by its common judgment dated 30 October 2014, allowed several similar applications but dismissed theirs. The High Court continued interim protection from 1 December 2014 while the writ petitions were pending.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could the State cancel compassionate appointments made years earlier by treating the deceased fathers’ posts as Group-B solely on the basis of their pay scale, ignoring later Government Resolutions classifying them as Group-C?
Pay Scale Alone Cannot Override the Government’s Own Resolutions
Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, writing for the Division Bench, framed the question as whether the respondents were justified in treating the fathers’ posts as Group-B solely because of the pay scale. The Court held that the 2002 GR and the 2010 letter “cannot be read in isolation from the subsequent Government Resolutions”. Four GRs — of 22 October 2008, 31 March 2010, 14 May 2010 and 31 August 2010 — together identified the Group Instructor post as Group-C. The State did not show that they had been withdrawn or superseded; the 19 May 2010 letter did not reconcile them; and the Tribunal had not considered them. As to Khond’s father, he held a Class-III post and the State had not established any valid basis for treating it as Group-B.
The Court also weighed equity: the petitioners had served continuously for about two decades, there was no delay on their part in seeking appointment, no fraud or misconduct was alleged, and they had crossed the usual age limits for government entry. Quoting Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court refused to let the State terminate a compassionate appointment after 15 years, the Court said the State cannot take advantage of its own mistake. Though the GR of 27 September 2021 (extending compassionate appointment to dependants of Group A and B employees) was not treated as retrospectively deciding the issue, it showed the restriction relied on had since been widened. Having been confirmed, the petitioners had a right to continue subject to service rules, and “the process adopted by the Respondents was not in accordance with law”.
What the Court Actually Held
- The State could not treat the fathers’ posts as Group-B solely on the basis of pay scale while ignoring four later Government Resolutions classifying the posts as Group-C.
- Confirmed compassionate appointees acquire a right to continue in service subject to the service rules, which cannot be taken away except in accordance with law.
- Absent fraud or suppression by the appointee, the State cannot benefit from its own mistake years later (Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar).
- The Tribunal’s judgment was set aside as regards both petitioners and the writ petitions were allowed in terms of the prayers, without costs; the Court clarified that the order turns on its peculiar facts and is not a precedent.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many government employees appointed on compassionate grounds face cancellation notices years later over technical eligibility issues. This ruling shows such action must consider all applicable Government Resolutions and the long service already rendered.
- It applies the principle that the State cannot benefit from its own mistake where the appointee committed no fraud.
- The Court itself said the order turns on its peculiar facts, so it should be cited with care.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Employees
- If your compassionate appointment is questioned years later, gather every Government Resolution that classifies your parent’s post.
- Long, unblemished service and the absence of any fraud on your part are relevant factors in your favour.
- Seek interim protection early, as the petitioners here did, so that service continues while the challenge is pending.
For Counsel
- Challenge reliance on pay scale alone where later GRs or staffing patterns classify the post differently.
- Cite Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar on the State not benefiting from its own mistake.
- Note the Court’s caution that the order is not to be treated as a precedent; distinguish on facts.
Key Takeaways
- Pay scale alone did not make the fathers’ posts Group-B.
- Four later GRs classified the post as Group-C and had to be considered.
- Confirmed appointees cannot be removed except in accordance with law.
- Both compassionate appointments were protected after about two decades of service.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a compassionate appointment be cancelled years later?
The Bombay High Court held that, where the appointee is confirmed and has committed no fraud, the right to continue cannot be taken away except in accordance with law, and the State cannot benefit from its own mistake.
Why did the State want to cancel these appointments?
It said the deceased fathers held Group-B posts based on their pay scale, and compassionate appointment was then available only to dependants of Group-C and D employees.
Is this a binding precedent for all such cases?
The Court expressly said the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent, though its reasoning on considering all GRs and on Md. Zamil Ahmed remains relevant.
Conclusion
Two men who got government jobs after their fathers died in service faced the prospect of losing them on a classification point raised years later. The Bombay High Court has held that the State ignored its own later Government Resolutions and could not, after about two decades, undo appointments made by its competent authorities.
Practical takeaway: Before acting against long-serving compassionate appointees, departments must examine every applicable Government Resolution; employees facing such action should place those GRs and their service record before the Tribunal or Court.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com