25-WP-605-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 605 OF 2026 Nikhil Jaywant Katrat ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents —————— Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke a/w Mr. Rahul Rane, Mr. Shubham Vasekar, Mr. Sainath Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Raninga, for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : AUGUST 19, 2026 P. C. : 1. By this Petition, an exception is taken to the order dated 9th July, 2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Director of Education, rejecting the Petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds to the post of Lab Attendant/Peon/Clerk in the Respondent No. 5 college, and for direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider and grant approval pursuant to the said appointment. 2. The Petition states that his father, Jaywant Sakharam Katrat, was employed as a Lab Attendant in Respondent No. 5 college. Due to severe brain and neurological ailments, he had underwent multiple eye Arya Chavan 1 of 6 2026:BHC-KOL:7802-DB 25-WP-605-2026.doc surgeries that left him visually disabled and he was subsequently diagnosed with throat cancer. Due to his medical condition, he was unable to perform his daily functions as Lab Attendant, and after serving for approximately 33 years, the Petitioner's father submitted an application on 31st January, 2024 seeking voluntary retirement on the ground of being medically unfit, which was accepted by Respondent No. 4, Managing Committee, and he was relieved from his service. In accordance with the procedure, the Petitioner's father underwent the requisite medical examination at various departments of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Miraj, pursuant to which medical certificate was issued on 15th April, 2024, declaring him medically unfit for service, facilitating his voluntary retirement on medical grounds. The Petitioner's father came to be relieved on 27th April, 2024, and subsequently, a biopsy report dated 6th July, 2024 conclusively confirmed the throat cancer. The Petitioner's father expired on 5th August, 2024, and the Petitioner submitted an application on 9th September, 2024 to the Respondent No. 5 seeking appointment on compassionate ground, which came to be rejected by the impugned order in view of the Government Resolution(“GR”) dated 22 August, 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner's father was declared to be medically unfit by reason of which Arya Chavan 2 of 6 25-WP-605-2026.doc he sought voluntary retirement and within a period of three and a half months thereafter, the Petitioner's father expired. He submits that the reason why the application for appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected was the GR dated 22nd August, 2005, which was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench, where the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that if the records show that the employee was medically unfit and not in a position to work, the legal heir is entitled to compassionate appointment, even if the employee had been relieved from services and had subsequently expired. He submits that the said decision was not considered by the Respondent No. 3 while rejecting the application seeking voluntary retirement. 4. Learned AGP would submit that as per the GR dated 22nd August, 2005, the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground to provide immediate financial aid to the families of employees, who expired while in service has been outlined. He would further point out that Clause 2(1) of the said GR changed the earlier position and the concession granted when a government servant is declared medically unfit for service due to suffering from cancer or accident, etc. came to be withdrawn, and that the appointment is only applicable to the heirs of deceased employees working in class C and D. He submits that the impugned order has been passed by taking into consideration the said GR, which is Arya Chavan 3 of 6 25-WP-605-2026.doc applicable and Petition does not deserve any interference. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner's father was relieved from his service by virtue of Managing Committee Resolution dated 20th March, 2024 in view of the application dated 31st January, 2024 seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds. We have perused the application seeking voluntary retirement, which specifically mentions about the medical ailments of the Petitioner's father, which has rendered him incapacitated for discharging his duties. The Petitioner has also placed on record the medical certificate dated 15th April, 2024 as well as biopsy report dated 6th July, 2024, which conclusively confirms throat cancer. The Petitioner's father expired three and a half months after he was relieved from his service. The Respondent No. 3 has applied the GR dated 22nd August, 2005 to reject the Petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. 7. In the case of Anita Bhujang Wagalgave And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And Others1, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court , Aurangabad Bench, considered some what similar facts, where the father of the Petitioner therein expired within three months after being relieved from the service due to medical condition. In that case, the order was identically premised on the GR dated 22nd August, 2005, 1 WP No. 2089 of 2021 decided on 12th April, 2022 by Aurangabad High Court Arya Chavan 4 of 6 25-WP-605-2026.doc wherein the contention was raised about the change in the government's policy with regard to appointment on compassionate basis. The Hon’ble Division Bench noted the earlier decision which arose out of an order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (“MAT”), which did not agree with the Clause 2 of Government Resolution dated 22nd August, 2005, and concluded that the same is discriminatory. The Hon’ble Division Bench noted that the view of the MAT was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. 8. After considering the settled position in law and the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that the GR of 2005 has been held to be inapplicable by the MAT as well as by the Division Bench of this Court, and there is no impediment from being considered for appointment on compassionate basis. 9. As this Court has held that Clause 2 of the GR dated 22nd August, 2005 is discriminatory, we are respectfully bound by the said decision. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Petitioner's father was suffering from serious medical ailments by virtue of which his physical condition deteriorated and he was incapacitated from discharging his duties. We are inclined to adopt the same course, which was adopted by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Anita Bhujang Wagalgave And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And Others (supra). The undisputed facts about the medical ailments and the applicability of the Arya Chavan 5 of 6 25-WP-605-2026.doc GR dated 22nd August, 2005 to reject the application, which GR has been held to be discriminatory and not applicable, would entitle the Petitioner to the relief of compassionate appointment. 10. In light of the above discussion, following directions are passed : (i) The petitioner to be enlisted in the list of eligible candidates for compassionate appointment considering his representation and his seniority to be construed from that date. (ii) In event the post is vacant, and the Petitioner is eligible for being appointed to the said post, the Respondent No. 4 management to pass an appropriate resolution, and appoint the Petitioner on the said post, and accordingly send a proposal to Respondent No. 3 for approval. 11. The Petition is allowed in the above terms. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 6 of 6