THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus MS. MADHURI MARUTI VIDHATE (SINCE AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. MADHURI SANTOSH KOLI) on 30 September 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature atBombay in Writ Petition No. 11614 of 2018 by which the High Court hasdismissed the said writ petition and has confirmed the order passed bythe Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as theH“Tribunal) directing to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground, the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, WaterResources Department has preferred the present appeal.

The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-

2.1 That the father of the respondent was in the clerical cadreserving with the appellants. He died in harness. After his death, his wife,i.e., mother of the respondent was appointed on compassionate ground.However, she died while in service. That thereafter the elder sister ofthe respondent namely Mrs. Sangita M. Thonge made application forseeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said application wasrejected vide communication dated 18.08.2011 on the ground that shecannot be given the appointment on compassionate ground as she is amarried daughter.

2.2 That thereafter the State Government issued a GovernmentCircular dated 26.02.2013, according to which the employment was tobe provided to one of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceasedgovernment servant on compassionate grounds.

2.3 That thereafter the respondent, a married daughter of thedeceased employee – Late Smt. Lata Maruti Vidhate applied forappointment on compassionate ground vide representation dated12.03.2013. At this stage, it is required to be noted that respondent is thesecond married daughter and the application made by her elder marriedsister was already rejected earlier in the year 2011. The application ofthe respondent for appointment on compassionate ground came to berejected vide order dated 23.04.2013.

2.4 The respondent filed O.A. No. 860 of 2015 before the Tribunalapproximately after a period of two years from the rejection of herapplication for appointment on compassionate ground. The Tribunal videits judgment and order dated 24.03.2017 allowed the said O.A. anddirected to consider the respondent’s case for appointment oncompassionate ground. The order passed by the Tribunal has beenconfirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order, whichis the subject matter of present appeal before this Court.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties,the question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case narratedhereinabove, the respondent shall be entitled to the appointmenton compassionate ground?

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4. The undisputed facts are that on the death of the deceasedemployee – father of the respondent, who died in harness, the mother ofthe respondent was given appointment on compassionate ground. Themother of the respondent died on 28.03.2006. That thereafter the eldermarried sister of the respondent made an application for appointment oncompassionate ground, which came to be rejected in the year 2011 onBthe ground that being a married daughter, she cannot be said to bedependent on her deceased mother and therefore, she is not entitled tothe appointment on compassionate ground. That after a period of sevenyears from the date of death of her mother, again, the respondent beingthe younger married daughter made an application for appointment onCcompassionate ground in the year 2013. In light of the aforesaid facts,the question posed is required to be considered.

5. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, thelaw laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of thedeceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. InDthe recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries inKarnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704,had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointmenton compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court inN.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Courthas summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment onEcompassionate ground as under:-

(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to thegeneral rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

F(iii)the appointment to any public post in the service of theState has to be made on the basis of the principle inaccordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ofIndia;

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made onlyGon fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of theapplication should be the basis for consideration of claimfor compassionate appointment.

H

6. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions onthe appointment on compassionate ground, for all the governmentvacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants asmandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However,appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of adeceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionateground is a concession and not a right.

6.1 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs.Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had anoccasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment oncompassionate ground and considered the decision of this Court in thecase of Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC289, in paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:- “21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind PrakashVerma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been consideredsubsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to thosedecisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionateappointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh KumarNagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State ofHaryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles which have beenlaid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been subsequentlyfollowed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. Theseprinciples are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh KumarNagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994)4 SCC 138], SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)

“2. … As a rule, appointments in the public servicesshould be made strictly on the basis of open invitation ofapplications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor anyother consideration is permissible. Neither the Governmentsnor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any otherprocedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules forthe post. However, to this general rule which is to be followedstrictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out inthe interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. Onesuch exception is in favour of the dependants of an employeedying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

H

any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarianconsideration taking into consideration the fact that unless somesource of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able tomake both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to providegainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceasedwho may be eligible for such employment. The whole object ofgranting compassionate employment is thus to enable the familyto tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a memberof such family a post much less a post for post held by thedeceased. What is further, mere death of an employee inharness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.The Government or the public authority concerned has toexamine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision ofemployment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis thata job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. Theposts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non- manualand manual categories and hence they alone can be offered oncompassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family,of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.The provision of employment in such lowest posts by makingan exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is notdiscriminatory. The favourable treatment given to suchdependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rationalnexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief againstdestitution. No other posts are expected or required to begiven by the public authorities for the purpose. It must beremembered in this connection that as against the destitute familyof the deceased there are millions of other families which areequally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made infavour of the family of the deceased employee is in considerationof the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations,and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engenderedby the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.”

26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz YunusMulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] has adoptedthe principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not asource of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial positionof the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of theprovisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind PrakashVerma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observedthat it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of thisCourt have been taken note of in that case.”

7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general ruleof appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependentsof a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury andwithout any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of purehumanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unlesssome source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able tomake both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainfulemployment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may beeligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionateemployment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by thedeceased.

7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions to the facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent nowon compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and purpose ofappointment on compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be saidto be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother. Evenotherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionateground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.

8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances ofthe case narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal as well as the High Courthave committed serious error in directing the appellants to appoint therespondent on compassionate ground. The judgment and order passedby the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court directing the appellants toconsider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionateground after a number of years is unsustainable.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theorder passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

[2022] 7 S.C.R.

A860 of 2015 and the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order passed by theTribunal are hereby quashed and set aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

B

Divya Pandey

(Assisted by: Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H