Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale vs State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary

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

JUDGMENT

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 the father of the Appellant suddenly expired of a heart Reason: 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 vide letter dated

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

6th 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 vide Resolution dated

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