Case title:
Vidya Sunil Ahire & Anr v. The Commissioner of Police, Thane & Ors
Date of Order:
28th June
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Chandurkar
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh S. Patil
Parties: Petitioner(s):
1. Vidya Sunil Ahire
2. Manish Sunil Ahire
Respondent(s): 1. The Commissioner of Police, Thane
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
3. Director General of Police, Mumbai
4. The State of Maharashtra
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’ or ‘the Court’) adjudicated a writ petition revolving around a compassionate appointment request sought by the petitioners. Petitioner no. 1’s husband died in harness and she requested appointment for her son, petitioner no. 2, on compassionate grounds which was initially denied on the basis of the failure to the prerequisites in 2001 government resolution. The petitioner contested the rejection in the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, but the appeal was also turned down by the Tribunal. The petitioner has now challenged the Tribunal’s judgment before the High Court.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules 2005 (The 2005 Rules)
OVERVIEW:
• On 13.02.2013, petitioner no. 1’s (P1) husband died in harness.
• P1 sought appointment for her son petitioner no. 2 (P2) on compassionate grounds within the Maharashtra government services.
• P1’s request was denied via a communication dated 11.01.2019 stating that P2 was not eligible for appointment in the Maharashtra government on the basis of a government resolution dated 28.03.2001, wherein families with more than 2 children are ineligible for compassionate appointments.
• The petitioners challenged the rejection in their original Application that was dismissed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, ruling that P2 does not meet the criteria for compassionate appointment.
• The tribunal’s order is being contested in the instant case.
ISSUES RAISED:
• Whether the petitioner qualified for compassionate appointment in the Maharashtra government services?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER(S):
• The Government Resolution dated March 28, 2001 was wrongfully applied by the Tribunal to the petitioners’ case as their 3rd child was born prior to the enforcement of the 2005 Rules therefore the Rules should apply to their case and not the 2001 Government resolution.
• Referring to the rulings in Harla v. State of Rajasthan and ITC Bhadrachalam paper Boards & Anr v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Andhra Pradesh & Ors, petitioners argued that due to the lack of proper publication of the 2001 resolution should invalidate its applicability to their case.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT(S):
• Relying on the judgement in Sunita Dinesh Gaikwad & Anr v. the State of Maharashtra & Anr, respondents asserted that the 2001 government resolution was valid and applicable in the instant circumstances.
• P2 did not qualify for compassionate appointment as per the 2001 resolution, which stipulates that families with more than 2 children are ineligible.
• The lack of publication of the 2001 resolution does not invalidate it since the publication is not mandatory.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
• Upholding the decision of the Tribunal, the High Court held that the 2001 government resolution was applicable to the case and does not mandate any prior publication.
• The High Court observed that the 2005 Rules were irrelevant to the instant case as the criteria for compassionate appointments were covered by the 2001 resolution.
• It was held that P2 cannot be granted compassionate appointment as the petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements of the 2001 resolution, and their family of more than 2 children were found ineligible.
• The precedents cited by the petitioners were disregarded, stating that the facts of those cases were related to publication of statutory rules where publication was mandatory. Whereas the instant case did require any such publication.
CONCLUSION
The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay as the Court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s ruling. It upheld the Tribunal’s ruling and opined that the 2001 government resolution was valid and applicable to the case and as per the resolution, petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was justly rejected. No order was given a
