923-WP-3067-2020.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 WRIT PETITION NO. 3067 OF 2020 Dinkar Bhausaheb Gangadhar ….Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others …..Respondents ….. Mr. Aghav Avinash D, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. P. J. Bharad, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 ….. CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : 01.07.2025 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. By consent of all the sides, the Petition is heard fnally. 2. The Petitioner’s married sister, namely, Shakuntala Dinesh Gore was working as a ‘Peon’ with Respondent Nos.3 and 4. During her service, her husband passed away. Subsequently, the Petitioner’s said sister died on 21/05/2016 due to the cancer. She had no children. The Petitioner, who is having parents, made the Applications to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 for appointment on compassionate ground due to death of his said sister. The said Applications came to be rejected by Respondent No.3 by the impugned order dated 01/01/2020. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court in the present Petition by making the following prayers : 1 2025:BHC-AUG:16923-DB 923-WP-3067-2020.odt “A. This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed; B. By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature, may kindly be quash and set aside the impugned communication letter dated 01.01.2020 issued by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner wherein claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected and for that purpose issue necessary orders. C. By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature, may kindly be direct to the respondent no.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per Clause 4 (AA) in the annexure "A" of the G.R. dated 21.09.2017 and include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of compassionate appointment of the Zilla Parishad Aurangabad. D. Pending the hearing and fnal disposal of this writ petition may kindly be quash and set aside the impugned communication letter dated 01.01.2020 issued by the respondent no. 3 and direct to the respondent no.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per Clause 4 (AA) in the annexure "A" of the G.R. dated 21.09.2017 and include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of compassionate appointment, for that purpose issue necessary orders. E. Any other suitable and equitable relief may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. ” 3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that, he was covered by Sub-clause - (अ) of Clause - (४) of the Government Resolution dated 21/09/2017, which is enclosed as Exhibit – I at Page No.36 in the Petition. He submits that, the deceased sister of the Petitioner had nominated the Petitioner to receive her service benefts by way of a Will, a copy of which is enclosed at Page No.13 in the Petition. He submits that, in the light of the above-referred Sub-clause of the said Government Resolution, the impugned order needs to be set aside and the Petition be allowed. 2 923-WP-3067-2020.odt 4. The Petition is opposed by the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. He submits that, the Petitioner’s deceased sister was married and the Petitioner was not dependent on her and he was not family member of the deceased sister and, therefore, he cannot get the benefts of the said Clause of the said Government Resolution. He submits that, the impugned order is in-consonance with the policy of Government on compassionate appointments, and therefore, the same does not call for any interference, and the Petition be dismissed. 5. The relevant Government Resolution is the one which is referred above. The relevant Clause No. (४) from the said Government Resolution is reproduced below :- “¼4½ vuqdaik fu;qDrhlkBh ik= dqVwafc; %& ¼v½ vuqdaik rRokjhy fu;qDrhlkBh [kkyhy uewn dsysys ukrsokbZd ik= jkgrhy o R;kiSdh ,dk ik= ukrsokbZdkl fu;qDrh vuqKs; jkghy- ¼1½ irh@iRuh ¼2½ eqyxk@eqyxh ¼vfookghr@fookghr½] e`R;wiwohZ dk;ns’khjfjR;k nRrd ?ksrysyk eqyxk@eqyxh ¼vfookghr@fookghr½ ¼3½ fnoaxr ‘kkldh; deZpk&;kpk eqyxk g;kr ulsy fdaok rks fu;qDrhlkBh ik= ulsy rj R;kph lwu ¼4½ ?kVLQksfVr eqyxh fdaok cgh.k] ifjR;Drrk eqyxh fdaok cgh.k] ¼5½ dsoG fnoxar vfookghr ‘kkldh; deZpk&;kaP;k ckcrhr R;kP;koj loZLrh voyacwu vl.kkjk HkkÅ fdaok cgh.k ¼’kklu fu.kZ;] fn- 26-10-1994 o fn- 17-11-2016½ ¼vk½ e`r vf/kdkjh@deZpk&;kaP;k ifr@iRuh us dks.kkph vuqdaik rRokoj fu;qDrh djkoh ;kckcr ukeadu ns.ks vko’;d jkghy- e`r vf/kdkjh@deZpk&;kaps irh@iRuh g;kr ulY;kl R;kP;k @frP;k loZ ik= dqVqafc;kauh ,df=r ;sÅu dks.kkph fu;qDrh djkoh ;kckcr ukeadu djkos- ¼’kklu fu.kZ;] fn- 17-07-2007½” 3 923-WP-3067-2020.odt 6. There is no dispute that the deceased sister of the Petitioner was married and she had no children. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner’s parents are alive. In the said Will, which is pointed out by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s deceased sister had stated of giving all the service benefts to the Petitioner as she was dependent on the Petitioner for hospital and medicines expenditures and the Petitioner used to take care of her. This indicates that, the Petitioner was not dependent on his deceased sister and he was independent. Further, if we see the above-referred Clause No.(४) from the said Government Resolution, the Petitioner is not covered by any of the said Clauses (१) to (५) of Sub-clause - (अ) of Clause – (४). As regards the reliance by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner to (आ) from the said Government Resolution is concerned, it is clear from the said Sub-clause – (आ) that, the nomination should be from any of the person as mentioned from (१) to (५) in (अ) under Clause - (४). As the Petitioner does not fall in any of the category from (१) to (५) in (अ), the said Clause – (आ) will not be of any beneft to the Petitioner. The impugned order shows that, Respondent No.3 has considered the said Clause – (४) from the said Government Resolution and rejected the Application of the Petitioner. The impugned order is in-consonance with the above-referred Clause of the said Government Resolution. Moreover, it is needless to state that, the object behind the compassionate appointment is to provide immediate fnancial assistance to the bereaved family members of the deceased employee. It is not so in the case at hand, as it is clear from the above-referred Will that the Petitioner was an Independent person and used to take care of medical expenses of his deceased sister. In this view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :- 4 923-WP-3067-2020.odt ORDER [I] The Writ Petition is dismissed. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.] Sameer/June-2025 5 Signed by: Md. Sameer Q. Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/07/2025 10:20:21