Shri. Avinash Kondiram Wagh vs The In-Charge Deputy Director And Anr.

CNR No : HCBM010465612014

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
bdp-sps
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10795 OF 2014
Shri Avinash Kondiram Wagh, ]
Aged 31 years, Occupation Service, ]
R/o. Flat No.23, Mangal Varsha CHS Ltd., ]
Kathe Lane, Dwarka, Nashik ] … Petitioner.
Versus
1. The In-charge Deputy Director, ]
Vocational Education & Training, ]
Regional Office, Trymbak Naka, ]
Old Agra Road, Nashik-2. ]
2. The State of Maharashtra, ]
through the Principal Secretary, ]
Higher & Technical Education Department, ]
[Vocational Education], Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai – 400032. ] ….Respondents.
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10796 OF 2014
Shri Abhay Chandrakant Khond, ]
Aged 36 years, Occupation Service, ]
R/o. D/701,Ramchandra, Heights, ]
Tisgaon, Kalyan [W], District Thane. ] ….Petitioner.
Versus
1. The In-charge Joint Director, ]
Vocational Education & Training, ]
Regional Office, Mumbai Region, ]
having Office at 49, Kherwadi, ]
Bandra [E], Mumbai – 400051. ]
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
2. The State of Maharashtra, ]
through the Principal Secretary, ]
Higher & Technical Education Department, ]
[Vocational Education], Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai – 400032. ] ….Respondents.
Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinayak
R. Kumbhar with Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire, for the Petitioner
in both the above Writ Petitions.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. GP with Ms. Reena Salunkhe, AGP, for the
State in WP No.10796 of 2014
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. GP with Ms. Rupali Shinde, AGP for
the State in WP No.10795 of 2014.
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
th
Reserved on : 12 October, 2026
th
Pronounced on : 30 October, 2026
JUDGMENT: (Per Gautam A. Ankhad, J.)

1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable
forthwith.
2. Both these Petitions challenge the common judgment and
th
order dated 30 October, 2014 passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (“Tribunal”). By the impugned
judgment, the Tribunal had allowed a few identical Original
Applications, but dismissed Original Application No. 1030 of 2010
filed by Shri Avinash Kondiram Wagh and Original Application No.
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
1220 of 2010 filed by Shri Abhay Chandrakant Khond. Since both
the Petitions raise a common issue concerning the classification of
the posts for the purpose of compassionate appointment, they are
being decided by this common judgment. The facts of each Petition
are set out separately below.
(Facts in Writ Petition No. 10795 of 2014 (Avinash Kondiram
Wagh):
3. The Petitioner’s father, Shri Kondiram Wagh, was employed
by the State Government as a junior clerk in a Group-C post. He
th st
died in service on 24 December, 2001. By order dated 1
December, 2004, Respondent No.1 appointed the Petitioner on
compassionate grounds as a Group Instructor in the pay-scale of
Rs.6,500-10,500/-. The Petitioner joined service, completed his
probation and since then has been in continuous employment with
the Respondents.
st
4. On 21 August, 2010, Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause
notice alleging that the Petitioner’s appointment was not in
nd
accordance with the Government Resolution dated 2 July 2002.
The notice proceeded on the basis that a post carrying the pay-
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500/- was classified as a Group-B, non-
gazetted post, and called upon the Petitioner to show cause why
his appointment should not be cancelled. The Petitioner challenged
the notice before the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.
1030 of 2010. The Petitioner relied, inter alia , on Government
nd st th
Resolutions dated 22 October 2008, 31 March 2010, 14 May
st
2010 and 31 August 2010, which, according to him, classified the
post of Group Instructor in that pay-scale as Group-C (Technical).
The Tribunal granted interim protection but finally dismissed the
st
Original Application. By order dated 1 December 2014, this Court
continued the interim protection granted to the Petitioner, who has
remained in service during the pendency of this Petition.
(Facts in Writ Petition No. 10796 of 2014 (Abhay Chandrakant
Khond):
5. The Petitioner’s father, Shri Chandrakant Khond, was
employed by the State Government as a Training Officer in the
th
pay-scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. He died in service on 7 March
st
2003. By order dated 31 January 2008, the Petitioner was
appointed on compassionate grounds as a Junior Clerk-cum-Typist.
He completed his probation and continued in service with the
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
Respondents on being confirmed.
th
6. On 26 October 2010, Respondent No. 1 issued a show-
th
cause notice relying on a confidential letter dated 19 May 2010
issued by the Directorate of Vocational Education and Training.
The letter stated that dependents of deceased employees holding
certain Group-B, non-gazetted posts, including posts carrying the
pay-scales referred to therein, were not eligible for compassionate
appointment and that appointments already made in such cases
should be cancelled. Since the Petitioner’s father had drawn the
pay-scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500/-, the Petitioner was called upon to
show cause why his appointment should not be cancelled. The
th
Petitioner replied on 8 November 2010, disputing the proposed
action. Apprehending termination of his service, he approached the
Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 1220 of 2010. The
Petitioner relied on the same Government Resolutions as the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.10795 of 2014 and contended that
the post held by his father was a Group-C post notwithstanding the
pay-scale attached to it. The Tribunal initially granted interim
relief, but subsequently dismissed the Original Application by the
th
impugned judgment dated 30 October 2014. This Court
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
st
continued the interim protection on 1 December 2014, and the
Petitioner has remained in service since then.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:
7. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel appearing for both
the Petitioners, submits that the posts held by their deceased
fathers, carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500/-, were
classified as Group-C posts under the relevant Government
Resolutions. In particular, the post of Group Instructor was
expressly shown as a Group-C (Technical) post. He further submits
that the post of Training Officer was a feeder-cadre post for
promotion to Group-B, which, according to him, supports the
distinction between the post held and the higher promotional post.
The appointments were made by the competent authorities under
the policy then in force. The same cannot be cancelled by relying
nd
solely on the Government Resolution dated 2 July 2002 while
ignoring the subsequent Government Resolutions referred to by the
Petitioners. The learned senior counsel also relies on the
th
Government Resolution dated 27 September 2021, by which the
policy of compassionate appointment was extended to dependents
of employees in Groups A and B as well as Groups C and D. He
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
submits that, in view of the subsequent policy decision of the State
and the other material on record including blemishless continued
service by the Petitioners, the impugned judgment ought to be set
aside.
Submissions on behalf of the State:
8. On the other hand, Ms. Solunke and Mr. Patel, the learned
th
AGP rely on the reply affidavits dated 28 July, 2016 filed by the
Respondents in the respective petitions. It is contended that
compassionate appointment was, at the relevant time, available
only to dependents of employees in Groups C and D. According to
the learned AGP, the Petitioners’ appointments resulted from an
erroneous classification of their fathers’ posts. Reliance is placed on
th
the confidential letter dated 19 May 2010 issued by the Director
of Vocational Education and Training, which instructed the Joint
Directors to terminate the compassionate appointments of
dependents of deceased employees drawing the specified pay-
scales as same were found to be impermissible. The learned AGP
submitted that there is no illegality in the actions of the
Respondents and the Tribunal’s decision warrants no interference.
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
Reasons:
9. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the
record. The question is whether the Respondents were justified in
treating the posts held by the Petitioners’ deceased fathers as
Group-B posts, solely on the basis of the pay-scale attached to
them, and consequently initiating action to cancel the
compassionate appointment of the Petitioners.
10. After following the due process, the Petitioners were
appointed by the competent departmental authorities in 2004 and
2008, respectively. Both the Petitioners completed probation and
continued in service for several years before the impugned show-
cause notices were issued in 2010. The notices rest on the premise
that the pay-scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500/- placed the posts held by
their fathers in Group B. In our view, the Government Resolution
nd th
dated 2 July 2002 and the confidential letter dated 19 May
2010, on which the Respondents rely, cannot be read in isolation
from the subsequent Government Resolutions, which specifically
addresses the post of Group Instructor and the staffing pattern of
the Department.
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
nd
11. A perusal of the Government Resolution dated 22 October
2008 shows that Respondents have classified the post of Group
Instructor, carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500, as a Group-
st
C (Technical) post. The Government Resolution dated 31 March
2010, concerning the permanency of 80 per cent of temporary
posts, similarly lists the post of Group Instructor as Group C in the
same pay-scale. Schedule I to the Government Resolution dated
th
14 May 2010 also places the said post under Group C, and the
st
Government Resolution dated 31 August 2010, concerning
transfers of Group Instructors, continues to treat the post as Group
C under the revised Sixth Pay Commission (tallying with the earlier
pay-scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-). We, therefore, find merit in the
submission of Mr. Bandiwadekar, that when read together, the
aforesaid Government Resolutions identify the post of Group
Instructor as a Group-C post. We may note that the Respondents
have not shown that any of these Government Resolutions are
withdrawn, superseded or set aside. The departmental letter dated
th
19 May 2010 does not address or reconcile these specific
classifications. No explanation is forthcoming from the learned
AGP as to why the aforesaid Government Resolutions were not
considered by the Respondents. We also find that the Tribunal has
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
not considered the aforesaid four Government Resolutions, which
has a material bearing on this case. Hence in our view, the action
proposed against Shri Avinash Wagh, the Petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 10795 of 2014, to set aside the compassionate appointment on
nd
the basis of the Government Resolution dated 2 July, 2002 cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law.
12. The facts in Writ Petition No. 10796 of 2014 also do not
support the proposed termination of service. The Respondents have
admitted that the Petitioner’s father was employed in a Class-III
post at the time of his death. The Petitioner was appointed on a
compassionate basis as a Junior Clerk-cum-Typist, a post which is
also classified in Group C. The Respondents have not established a
valid basis to treat the father’s post as Group B. Hence, for the
same reasons as aforesaid, the action proposed against Shri Abhay
Khond, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10796 of 2014 cannot be
sustained in law.
13. On the material before us, we are satisfied that the posts
held by the Petitioners’ deceased fathers were correctly treated as
Group-C posts for the purpose of appointing the Petitioners. The
proposed cancellation of their compassionate appointments is
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
without consideration of several Government Resolutions referred
to above and would cause serious and disproportionate prejudice
to the Petitioners. Apart from merits of the case, as discussed
above, the claim of the Petitioners also weighs strongly on the
principle of equity and fairness against the drastic action of
unsettling their employment after such a long period of service.
There was no laches or delay on the part of the Petitioners in
seeking compassionate appointment. The Petitioners have served
continuously for approximately two decades. No fraud,
misrepresentation or other misconduct on their part has been
alleged. The Petitioners have also now crossed the usual age limits
for entry into Government employment. As such, termination of
their service at this stage would expose them and their family
members, to grave and disproportionate hardship.
1
14. In Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held in similar circumstances that the compassionate
appointment could not be terminated. The relevant paragraphs
read as under:-
“14.In our considered view, the aforesaid facts would clearly
show that it was a conscious decision taken by the State for
1
(2016) 12 SCC 342
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
giving an appointment to the appellant for the benefit of the
family members of the deceased who were facing financial
hardship due to sudden demise of their bread-earner. The
appellant being the only close relative of the deceased could
be given the appointment in the circumstances prevailing in
the family. In our view, it was a right decision taken by the
State as a welfare State to help the family of the deceased at
the time of need of the family.
15. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there was no
justification on the part of the State to wake up after the
lapse of 15 years and terminate the services of the appellant
on such ground. In any case, we are of the view that whether
it was a conscious decision of the State to give appointment
to the appellant as we have held above or a case of mistake
on the part of the State in giving appointment to the
appellant which now as per the State was contrary to the
policy as held by the learned Single Judge, the State by their
own conduct having condoned their lapse due to passage of
time of 15 years, it was too late on the part of the State to
have raised such ground for cancelling the appellant's
appointment and terminating his services. It was more so
because the appellant was not responsible for making any
false declaration nor he suppressed any material fact for
securing the appointment. The State was, therefore, not
entitled to take advantage of their own mistake if they felt it
to be so. The position would have been different if the
appellant had committed some kind of fraud or
manipulation or suppression of material fact for securing the
appointment. As mentioned above such was not the case of
the State.”
th
15. We may also note that by Government Resolution dated 27
September 2021, the State has extended the policy of
compassionate appointment, previously applicable to dependents
of Group-C and Group-D employees, to dependents of employees
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
in Groups A and B as well. We do not treat this later policy as
retrospectively determining the classification of the posts or as the
source of the Petitioners’ entitlement. However, it demonstrates
that the policy restriction on which the Respondents rely has since
been widened.
16. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds
is an exception to the ordinary rule of recruitment. It is a beneficial
measure adopted by the State to alleviate the financial hardship
and provide immediate assistance by providing employment to a
family member of a deceased employee. This enables the family
tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the untimely death
of the employee. In the present case, both the Petitioners had
completed their probation and were confirmed in service by
Respondent No.1. Having thus acquired the status of confirmed
employees, the Petitioners have acquired a right to continue in
service, subject to the applicable service rules. Such appointment
and right to continue in service cannot be taken away except in
accordance with law. The Petitioners have been in service for
almost two decades. Therefore, any attempt to remove them from
service in this matter, at this belated stage, would not only run
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36

WP-10796-2014 & WP-10795-2014 JUDGMENT DOC.
contrary to the very object of compassionate appointment, but the
same would also be contrary to relevant Service Rule. In the facts
and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the
process adopted by the Respondents was not in accordance with
law.
17. For all the above reasons, the impugned judgment, insofar as
it dismisses their Original Applications, cannot be sustained. The
th
impugned judgment and order dated 30 October 2014, insofar as
it dismisses Original Application No. 1030 of 2010 filed by Avinash
Kondiram Wagh and Original Application No. 1220 of 2010 filed
by Abhay Chandrakant Khond, is set aside. Both the Writ Petitions
are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Needless to add that this order is passed in peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent
for other matters.
18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH PANDIT
Date: 2026.10.30
20:18:10 +0530
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded on - 30/10/2026 Downloaded on - 30/10/2026 20:27:36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)