Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner, challenge was raised to the rejection of approval to his compassionate appointment as a Peon in a fully aided Secondary School, where he was appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, a permanent and approved Junior Clerk. However, the Education Officer declined approval on the ground that he was appointed to a lower post than that held by his deceased father. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., while allowing the petition, held that the reasons assigned by the Education Officer in the order were unsustainable. The Court emphasised that there can be no embargo on grant of approval to a compassionate appointee who is appointed on a post for which he has necessary qualifications.
Background:
The case arose from the rejection of approval for the compassionate appointment of the petitioner as a Peon in a fully aided Secondary School. The petitioner, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, was born on 01-06-1980 and had acquired education up to the Higher Secondary Level.
The petitioner’s father was working as a permanent and approved Junior Clerk in the School and was receiving a monthly salary from the salary grants extended to the School by the Government. On 14-07-2011, the petitioner’s father died in harness, leaving behind a widow, five daughters, and two sons.
The other family members extended no objection, and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the School on compassionate basis on 31-08-2015. He was accommodated on a permanent post of Peon which had fallen vacant due to the retirement of a permanent employee.
Consequently, the School forwarded a proposal dated 01-09-2015 to the Education Officer seeking approval of the petitioner’s appointment. The said proposal was received by the Education Officer on 04-12-2017. However, by the order dated 25-05-2023, the Education Officer rejected the proposal.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the Government Resolution (‘Resolution’) dated 31-12-2002 issued by the School and Education Department, Government of Maharashtra prescribes that an eligible legal heir can be appointed on compassionate basis on the post as may be available considering the qualifications of the candidate. The Court further noted that the Resolution also prescribes that if a candidate has higher qualification and a commensurate post for which such requisite qualifications are required is not available, the candidate can be appointed on any lower post and, as and when the higher post becomes vacant to which such candidate would be eligible, he would have a right to be absorbed on the said higher post for which he has requisite qualification.
The Court highlighted that a communication dated 14-09-2022 issued by the Desk Officer, State of Maharashtra, School Education and Sports Department, informed all the Education Inspectors in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corpn. and the Education Officers (Primary/Secondary and Higher Secondary) from the Zilla Parishad and Municipal Corporations, that a candidate who may not be eligible to be appointed on the post on which his deceased parent was working, should be offered a lower post depending upon the availability.
The Court observed that the order dated 31-08-2015, vide which the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nashik declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner only for the reason that he was appointed on a lower post, in the backdrop of his deceased father having been working on a higher post. The Court was not convinced by such logic applied by the Education Officer. The Court noted that there was no dispute that the petitioner did not have the qualifications necessary for being appointed on an equivalent post, as was occupied by his deceased father. The Court further observed that it could have taken a stern view in this matter, but the State pleaded that action may not be taken against the Education Officer as the order could be a result of a misjudgement.
The Court emphasised that there can be no embargo on grant of approval to a compassionate appointee who is appointed on a post for which he has necessary qualifications. It was noted that the Resolution dated 31-12-2002 indicated pragmatism on the part of the Government in dealing with such cases of compassionate appointment, in order to ensure that the family which lost a bread earner was extended financial support at the earliest. The Court appreciated that the Management promptly appointed the petitioner on the post of a Peon which was available considering his educational qualification. However, the Court held that the reasons assigned by the Education Officer in the order were unsustainable.
The Court thus allowed the petition and directed that the payment of the regular salary of the petitioner, as per the salary grants. Further, the arrears of the dues would be calculated by the Management, and the necessary bills submitted to the Education Officer on or before 21-11-2025.
[Sandip Keda Garud v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 257 of 2025, decided on 06-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w. Vinayak R. Kumbhar, Rajendra B. Khaire i/b. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar, Advocate
For the Respondents: P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w. Nisha Mehra, AGP, Gauratna Kale i/b. Sachin Dhakephalkar, Advocate