Apex Court Directs Maharashtra Government To Reconsider Compassionate Appointment Denied On Ground That Family Survived For 15 Years After Employee's Death
The Supreme Court recently while dealing with a Special Leave Petition has directed the State of Maharashtra to consider the case of one Govinda Janardan Gaikwad for compassionate appointment as Jalsevak, who was initially denied the appointment as well as the substitution of name from the waiting list accepting the argument that 15 years had elapsed since his father's demise, during which the family had managed to sustain itself.
The appellant, working as a labourer, challenged the Bombay High Court's decision dismissing the Writ Petition filed seeking compassionate appointment on four grounds outlined in the impugned judgment: i) The father's demise occurred 15 years ago; ii) The family has sustained itself for 15 years; iii) The petitioner's sister is married, and iv) The petitioner is married and employed as a labourer.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S.Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal expressing surprise at the grounds raised before the High Court noted, "It is very unfortunate that the concerned respondents raised a contention before the High Court that as the family of the appellant has survived for 15 years after the death of the appellant's father, he is not entitled to compassionate appointment."
Further, criticizing the aforementioned grounds, the Bench clarified that the fact that the appellant's sister has got married has obviously nothing to do with the grant of compassionate appointment to the appellant. The Court further stated that secondly, the appellant is not having regular employment and is working as a labourer. and thirdly, the appellant could apply only after he attained the age of majority.
"In our view, considering the concept of welfare State, the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 ought not to have raised such a contention, especially when the appellant is making both ends meet by working as a labourer. Thus, none of the four grounds mentioned above are available to the respondent Nos. 3 and 5", stated the Bench in its order.
The Court accordingly directed, "Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to consider the case of the appellant for grant of compassionate appointment in the light of what we have held in this judgment. Necessary action shall be taken by the respondent State within a period of three months from today."
Advocates Sneha Botwe and Siddharth Chapalgaonkar appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Bharat Bagla and Shirish K. Deshpande appeared for the Respondents.
In the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the appellant, it was submitted that the petitioner's family relied entirely on the income of his father. It was further emphasized that at the time of his father's demise, the petitioner was a minor.
It was also stated that the Petitioner was compelled to do labour work while also pursuing his education and thereafter, on attaining majority, being the son of the deceased employee, made a representation to Superintendent Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Mandal, Aurangabad to consider him for the post of Jalsevak on compassionate grounds which was abruptly denied by the authorities.
The SLP also stated that the High Court denied the Petitioner’s claim on the ground that no purpose would be served by appointing the Petitioner after 15 years of his father’s demise. The appellant stated that this observation is unjustified and is prejudicing the livelihood of the Petitioner and his family.
The appeal was accordingly allowed by the Supreme Court.
Cause Title: Govinda Janardan Gaikwad v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors. [IVIL APPEAL NO.7489 OF 2023]
