Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 30 January, 2020
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, R.G. Avachat
1-wp.6267.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6267 OF 2018
DNYANESHWAR RAMKISHAN MUSANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
----
Mr.S.D.Bhosle, Advocate h/f. Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate
for petitioner
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondent
no.1
Mr.V.V.Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent no.2
----
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 30, 2020 PER COURT :-
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, though reply on behalf of respondent no.2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, is filed through Shri.M.G.Jadhav, Assistant Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Purna, in our opinion, the same is silent on certain material aspect. ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:18:34 :::
2 1-wp.6267
3. The facts, in brief, are as under :-
The father of the petitioner, who was an employee of respondent no.2 - Zilla Parishad, expired on 06.09.2005. Immediately, an application was filed by the widow of deceased employee, Smt.Jayashri (mother of the petitioner), for appointment to a Class-IV post on compassionate ground. Along with the application, the widow - Smt.Jayahri submitted all the necessary documents such as, certificates showing educational qualification, succession certificate, affidavit, income certificate, death certificate, etc. A proposal was submitted to the Chief Executive Officer, through the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Gangakhed, way back in the year 2005 and precisely, on 29.11.2005. On 24.11.2007, the grand-parents of the petitioner and in-laws of the widow - Smt.Jayashri, submitted an application requesting that instead of widow - Smt.Jayashri, compassionate appointment may be granted to their grand-son namely, Dnyaneshwar (present petitioner). ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:18:34 :::
3 1-wp.6267
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was minor at the relevant point of time. His grand-parents had neither any reason nor a right to make request to the authority to grant compassionate appointment to their grand-son.
5. Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2, clearly reveals that the application filed by the grand-parents of the petitioner, was objected by the widow - Smt. Jayashri. Respondent no.2 then kept the matter pending and hearing was scheduled on 13.11.2013.
During the hearing, the widow - Smt. Jayashri relinquished her claim and requested to consider the claim of her son (present petitioner) for appointment on compassionate ground i.e. in favour of her son.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner, on attaining majority, filed an independent application for consideration of the claim on compassionate ground, which came to be rejected by order dated 13.10.2016, ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:18:34 ::: 4 1-wp.6267 impugned in this petition. The reason assigned for rejection of the application is not at all satisfactory. There is no explanation as to why the claim of the widow was not considered by the respondent - Zilla Parishad when it was alive and pending for nearly eight years i.e. since the date of application in the year 2005, till the so called relinquishment expressed by the widow in the year 2013. The reason assigned was that as an alternative name was suggested, the claim of the widow - Smt.Jayashri was not considered.
7. The widow of the deceased employee - Smt.Jayashri had submitted her claim in the year 2005, meaning thereby that her name could have found place in the waiting list maintained by the Zilla Parishad for a period of more than eight years. Respondent no.2 has not even stated in the affidavit- in-reply that for these eight years, post of Class-IV employee was not available with the Zilla Parishad so as to accommodate widow - Smt. Jayashri. ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:18:34 :::
5 1-wp.6267
8. A reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent no.2 - Zilla Parishad on the Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015. In our opinion, the Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015, would not be helpful to respondent - Zilla Parishad for the simple reason that the claim of mother of the petitioner is alive much prior to the Government Resolution dated 20.05.2015 and respondent - Zilla Parishad cannot apply Government Resolution of 2015 in the case of mother of petitioner, retrospectively.
9. In view of these facts, we direct respondent no.2 - Zilla Parishad to file additional affidavit- in-reply, explaining all the above-referred points. Respondent no.2 shall state, whether any appointments on compassionate ground have been made by Zilla Parishad during the period from 2005 to 2013. We further direct respondent no.2 to state, as to how many posts of Class-IV posts are available at present and whether the claim of the mother of petitioner, ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:18:34 ::: 6 1-wp.6267 which was alive for eight years, can be considered, on the backdrop of her age at the time when she had submitted the application. Respondent no.2 shall also state that in case, at present, post of class IV employee is not available, when such post would be available. Such an affidavit be filed within two weeks from today.
10. We further make it clear that considering the issue, which has been elaborately referred by us in this order, the petition can be decided finally at the stage of admission on the next date, if it is convenient to this Court. Post the petition on 17.02.2020.
11. Authenticated copy of this order be issued to respondent no.2 - Zilla Parishad. [R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.] kbp ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 11:18:34 :::