AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra V. Ghuge , J
With reference to Writ Petition No.3068 of 2025, leave to delete the document at Page No.72, to be replaced by the copy of the impugned order.
In all these Petitions, the Petitioners have approached this Court challenging identical impugned orders, all dated 16th
January, 2025, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Palghar. All these Petitioners are Compassionate Appointees. All are identically situated. All are working with the Panchayat Samiti, Palghar, Zilla Parishad, Palghar. The deceased parents were working with the Zilla Parishad, Thane and it is after bifurcation that the compassionate appointments were made by the Panchayat Samiti, Palghar, Zilla Parishad, Palghar.
In all these Petitions, the impugned orders refusing to regularize the appointments of these compassionate appointees, are based on the ground of delay. For ready reference, we are reproducing the chart tendered by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, as under :-
Sr.
No.
Writ
Petition
No.
Petitioner
Name
Date of
Death
of Parent
Relation
Date of
Application
Age at
Application
Delay in
Application
Date of
Appointment
Date of
Impugned
Order
Reason
in
Notice
909
WP/ 3068/ 2025
Ajay Ganesh Shirodkar
05.05.2 007
Son
07.08.2009
34
~1 year 3 months
21.02.2017
16.01.2025
Delay in application
910
WP/ 3069/ 2025
Ashok Kashinath Pilena
11.07.2 002
Son
12.07.2004 (Reminder19.07.2016 and 04.10.2016)
29
~1 year
21.02.2017
16.01.2025
Delay in application
911
WP/ 3070/ 2025
Ajay Santosh Bhavari
27.04.2 009
Son
28.04.2010
35
1 day
21.02.2017
16.01.2025
Delay in application
912
WP/ 3071/ 2025
Ajay Ramesh Lahange
04.08.2 009
Son
10.10.2010
18
2 months
21.02.2017
16.01.2025
Delay in application
It is, thus, apparent that in all these Petitions, the delay in these cases are viz. of one year and three months (Ajay Ganesh Shirodkar), one year (Ashok Kashinath Pilena), one day (Ajay Santosh Bhavari) and two months (Ajay Ramesh Lahange). In the last case of Mr. Lahange, he made an Application two months after he became 18 years of age.
The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad has strenuously opposed all these Petitions and submits that each of these Petitions deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. There is no dispute that as on the date of appointment of these Petitioners on compassionate basis, on 21st January, 2017, the limitation was of one year.
The Government Resolutions dated 23rd August, 1996 and the Government Circular date 5th February, 2010, indicate instructions issued by the State Government as regards the obligation on the office in which the deceased Employee was working at the time of passing away, to apprise the family members regarding the compassionate appointment and get the documentation done by rendering assistance to the bereaved family so as to ensure that the application is tendered within limitation.
The relevant clause as existing by virtue of the said Government Resolution and Government Circular, has been reiterated and reproduced below Clause 7(a) in the Government Resolution dated 21st September, 2017, which reads thus :-
In the case of Roshan Vitthal Kale and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 (3) Mh.L.J. 470, this Court has held that whenever the policy requires that the Employer should inform the bereaved family about the opportunity of compassionate appointment, it should assist the family members in preparation of documents and submissions of the proposals. This Court has ruled that if there is any delay in the absence of any assistance by the office to the bereaved family or in the absence of the concerned officer of the department intimating the family and assisting it in preparation of the records, the benefit should be granted to the bereaved family. In short, instead of following a pedantic approach, a pragmatic approach has to be accepted.
The relevant Paragraph No.11 of Roshan Vitthal Kale (Supra), reads as under :-
“11. We, therefore, find that when the Associate Professor was specifically cast with the duty of informing petitioner No.1 – Roshan that he is eligible for compassionate appointment and when the said Associate Professor failed to ensure that the application was prepared and accepted within a period of one year, petitioner No.1 apparently was left in the lurch. It is on these peculiar facts of this case that we find that petitioner No.1 was unable to file his application within limitation. Even today, petitioner No.1 and his two younger sisters are said to be living in abject poverty and he has to search for a job on each day so as to feed himself and his two sisters.”
The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad submits that the delay is admitted, though ranging from one day to one year and three months. He is contends that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad has passed the impugned orders, strictly as per the rules.
We are, however, interfering with the impugned orders on the following grounds :-
(a) These Petitioners are from the Class-IV categories. They were not apprised of the limitation by any officer of the department and there was no assistance in preparation of the proposals for their submission within the limitation period.
(b) After the death of the bread earner, which is evident from the chart reproduced above, the Applications were kept pending for periods ranging from 8 years to 15 years. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy V/s. State of Orissa, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684, mandates that such Applications have to be decided by the Employer within six months and should not be kept pending.
(c) The delay caused by the department between 8 years to 15 years, in passing orders on these applications would not truncate the rights of these Petitioners, rather has made them suffer the rigours of delay.
Taking into account the above factors, we find that the Petitioners’ cases rest on peculiar facts and circumstances. The fact that the Zilla Parishad, Thane did not apprise the bereaved family and did not assist any of them in filing the Application for compassionate appointment, within one year despite the Government Resolution dated 23rd August, 1999 and the Government Circular dated 5th February, 2010, should not jeopardize the rights of these Petitioners. So also, the pendency of their Applications for periods ranging from 8 years to 15 years, should not dislodge their claims. Taking a holistic view of these factors, we conclude that these Petitioners, after 8 years of being in compassionate appointment, can not be thrown out of Employment.
As such, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 16th January, 2025, stand quashed and set aside. We direct the Zilla Parishad to record that the appointments of these Petitioners shall be regularized and they shall be entitled for all such benefits, as are available to a regularized Employees.