Megha 41_wp_425_2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2024 Changdeo Chokha Waghmare and Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. The Chief Officer, Tasgaon Nagar Parishad, Tasgaon. ...Respondents ______________ Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for the Petitioners. ______________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 3 February 2025. P.C. : 1) Petition challenges order dated 21 January 2016 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Sangli, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.20 of 2011 filed by the Petitioners. The Complaint was filed seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father on the strength that he was working with Respondent -Municipal Council as Sweeper. 2) I have heard Mr. Nikam, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. I have also gone through the findings recorded by the Industrial Court while dismissing the Complaint as well as documents placed alongwith the Petition. Page No. 1 of 3 3 February 2025 MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Digitally signed by MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date: 2025.02.04 14:30:54 +0530 Megha 41_wp_425_2024.docx 3) First reason for not entertaining the present Petition is inordinate delay and laches in filing the same. Petitioners’ Complaint was dismissed on 21 January 2016 whereas the present Petition is filed on 30 October 2023. Thus, there is delay of 7 long years in filing the present Petition. Though a vague justification is sought to be pleaded in paragraph 12 of the Petition about the wife of Petitioner No.1 suffering from heart attacks at regular intervals and she succumbing to the same, no material particulars such as date, etc. or supporting documents in that regard are produced. Another vague reason is of Covid-19 pandemic. However, how Covid-19 pandemic prevented the Petitioners from filing the Petition for 7 long years, is incomprehensible. 4) It must be borne in mind that the Petitioners seek compassionate appointment and the object of the scheme is to provide immediate succor to indigent members of the family after death of the breadwinner. In the present case, the fact that Petitioners had luxury of waiting for seven long years to file the petition after dismissal of Complaint clearly shows absence of any need of financial assistance to the family. 5) So far as merits of the case is concerned, Petitioner’s father retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Ordinarily wards of retiring employees are not entitled for compassionate appointment. However, reliance is Page No. 2 of 3 3 February 2025 Megha 41_wp_425_2024.docx placed on Lad-Page Committee Report, which envisages grant of compassionate appointment to persons engaged in scavenging activities. With a view to fit himself in parameters of Lad-Page Committee Report, the employee attempted to prove that he used to work as sweeper. However, in the order rejecting compassionate appointment the Municipal Council recorded a finding of fact that Petitioner No.1 worked as temporary sweeper only from 15 November 1978 to 14 December 1978. Order of regular appointment of Petitioner No.1 would indicate that he was regularised in service on the post of mazoor. Therefore, there is nothing on record to indicate that Petitioner No.1 was a regular sweeper in the Municipal Council. Therefore, the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Lad-Page Committee Report can otherwise be not extended in the present case. Thus, on both counts of delay as well as on merits, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Petition. 6) Petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 3 February 2025