Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6626 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3500 of 2015)
Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale …Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary & Ors. …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the final
Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2014 passed in W.P. No.
3520 of 2014 by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court,
whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed.
2. The background facts briefly stated are as under:
2.1.The father of the Appellant – Late Shri Nagraoji Ugale was
working as a Peon (Class IV) with the School run by the
Nagpur Pradesh Education Society. While he was in service,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEELAM GULATI
Date: 2019.08.26
16:41:35 IST
Reason:
the father of the Appellant suddenly expired of a heart
1
attack on 13.10.2012. Since the father of the Appellant was
the only breadwinner in the family, the Appellant filed an
Application for Compassionate appointment on 29.10.2012.
This was followed up by further letters on 30.10.2012 and
31.10.2012.
2.2.Respondent No. 2 – the Education Officer letter dated
vide
06.05.2013 called upon the Appellant for a hearing on
17.05.2013 to consider the application for appointment on
Compassionate Grounds. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
remained absent from the hearing on 17.05.2013, which was
rescheduled for 31.05.2013.
The Respondent No. 2 – the Education Officer
vide
Order dated 31.05.2013 recorded that the President of the
Society was ready to grant compassionate appointment to
the Appellant, if the Education Officer grants the
permission. The Education Officer recorded that the
Appellant possessed the educational qualification of S.S.C.
and had passed the computer examination MSCIT.
Furthermore, there were two Schools being run by the
Nagpur Pradesh Education Society, and each of the Schools
had one post of Junior Clerk vacant. The Education Officer
2
directed that the proposal for approval be submitted to his
office within one month.
2.3.In response, Respondent No. 3 issued a communication
dated 13.07.2013 to the Education Officer stating that a
Government Resolution dated 22.03.2012 contemplates a
ban on recruitment on nonteaching employees on
compassionate ground, which was relaxed in respect of the
waitlist candidates prior to 31.12.2011.
2.4.The Government of Maharashtra vide Resolution dated
22.03.2012 bearing No. PDN2012/Pra. Kra. 15/12
Financial Development1, continued the ban imposed on
22.08.2005 for recruitment of posts in ‘Group C and Group
D’ cadres in Government Departments/Offices and
Government Aided Institutions with a view to control the
administrative expenditure on the Recommendations of the
th
6 Pay Commission. The Recruitment ban on candidates in
the compassionate list after 22.08.2005 was continued.
The Government vide Resolution dated 22.03.2012
relaxed the ban for candidates in the waiting list of
appointments on compassionate ground till 31.12.2011.
2.5.The Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated
vide
01.03.2014 bearing No. AKP1014/Pra. Kra. 34/8 revised its
3
decision dated 22.08.2005 which had restricted recruitment
to 5% in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ on the basis of compassionate
appointment, and increased the limit to 10% of posts.
2.6.Since the representations of the Appellant were not granted,
W.P. No. 3520 of 2014 was filed by the Appellant before the
High Court, praying inter alia for the issuance of a direction
to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to appoint the Appellant on
compassionate grounds.
2.7.The High Court vide final Judgment and Order dated
19.11.2014 held that the relief sought by the Appellant
cannot be granted. The Appellant could not be appointed on
compassionate grounds since the family of the Appellant had
received monetary benefits of Rs. 7,50,000/ towards the
statutory dues of the deceased i.e. Provident Fund, Gratuity
and Leave Encashment. It was also held that the mother of
the Appellant was receiving a monthly pension of Rs.
11,030/. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed
by the Appellant.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment of the High Court, the
Appellant has filed the present Special Leave Petition before
4
this Court. This Court issued Notice to the Respondents vide
Order dated 12.02.2015.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants inter alia submitted that
the Appellant is qualified and eligible to be appointed to the
post of Peon (Class IV). There is a vacancy for the post of Peon
(Class IV) in the two Schools run by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
The Appellant and his family are facing a serious financial
crisis due to the death of his father. The grant of monetary
benefits on the death of his father towards provident fund,
gratuity and leave encashment cannot be a ground for denial of
appointment on compassionate grounds.
5. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 inter alia
submitted that there are two Schools run by Respondent Nos.
3 and 4. Prior to the session commencing 201314, there were
9 Class IV posts available in both the schools. Out of the said 9
posts, 7 posts were already filled up. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
did not get permission from the Education Department to fill
up the remaining two posts. The family of the Appellant had
received a sum of Rs. 7,53,243 towards monetary benefits at
the time of death of the Appellant’s father.
5
Apart from the monetary benefits, the mother of the
Appellant has been receiving Rs. 11,020 towards monthly
pension. The Appellant cannot claim compassionate
appointment as a matter of right.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have
perused the material on record.
6.1.In the present case, the Appellant admittedly possesses the
educational qualifications for the post of Peon. The Appellant
has an S.S.C. Degree along with MS. C.I.T.
6.2.Even though Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 contended that there
is a ban since 2005 for appointment on compassionate
grounds, a relaxation was initially granted for persons on
the wait list till 31.12.2011.
Thereafter, vide Government Resolution dated
01.03.2014 bearing No. AKP1014/Pra. Kra. 34/8 the
Government of Maharashtra decided to increase the
recruitment of ‘Group C and D’ posts on compassionate
ground from 5% to 10%.
On 02.04.2014, the Government released a
Supplementary Order to this Resolution stating that all
employment authorities shall take action every year to fill up
6
the posts reserved for compassionate appointment upto 10%
of vacant posts of Class C and D from 2012.
This reveals that the Government was continuing to
make appointments on compassionate grounds despite the
ban of 2005, and in fact had increased the number of posts
earmarked for compassionate appointment to 10%.
6.3.A perusal of the Order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the
Education Officer reveals that during the hearing,
Respondent No. 3 – President of the Society stated that the
Society was ready to appoint the Appellant on
compassionate grounds, if the Education Officer grants the
permission.
The Education Officer had in the proceedings dated
31.05.2013 recorded that there are 2 post of Junior Clerk
vacant in the two Schools run by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4,
where the Appellant could be appointed.
This fact has not been either adverted to, or considered
by the High Court, in the impugned judgment.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow
the Appeal, and set aside the Judgment passed by the High
Court on 19.11.2014 in W.P. No. 3520 of 2014.
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to submit the proposal
for appointment of the Appellant before the Respondent No. 2 –
7
the Education Officer within one month, so that necessary
orders can be passed on the application of the appellant.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
…..……...........................J.
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
..….……..........................J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi
August 26, 2019.
8