Ajay Ramesh Lahange v. The Zilla Parishad Palghar Throu. Its Chief Executive Officer And ORS
REPORTABLE FINAL ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3068 OF 2025 Ajay Ganesh Shirodkar
...Petitioner
Versus
The Zilla Parishad, Palghar & Ors.
...Respondents
AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3069 OF 2025 Ashok Kashinath Pilena
...Petitioner
Versus
The Zilla Parishad, Palghar & Ors.
...Respondents
AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3070 OF 2025 Ajay Santosh Bhavari
...Petitioner
Versus
The Zilla Parishar, Palghar & Ors.
...Respondents
AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3071 OF 2025 by SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Date: 2025.03.11 14:40:18 +0530 SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Ajay Ramesh Lahange
...Petitioner
Versus
The Zilla Parishad, Palghar & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. Vikram Walawalkar a/w Mr. Amey Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ajit M. Savagave a/w Ms. Samruddhi Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Z.P.
Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent No.4/State in WP/3068/2025.
Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondent No.4/State in WP/3069/2025.
Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for Respondent No.4/State in WP/3070/2025. Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent No.4/State in WP/3071/2025. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 4th MARCH, 2025 FINAL ORDER (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J) :- 1.
With reference to Writ Petition No.3068 of 2025, leave to delete the document at Page No.72, to be replaced by the copy of the impugned order.
2.
In all these Petitions, the Petitioners have approached this Court challenging identical impugned orders, all dated 16th January, 2025, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Palghar. All these Petitioners are Compassionate Appointees. All are identically situated. All are working with the Panchayat Samiti, Palghar, Zilla Parishad, Palghar. The deceased parents were working with the Zilla Parishad, Thane and it is after bifurcation that the compassionate appointments were made by the Panchayat Samiti, Palghar, Zilla Parishad, Palghar.
3.
In all these Petitions, the impugned orders refusing to regularize the appointments of these compassionate appointees, are based on the ground of delay. For ready reference, we are reproducing the chart tendered by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, as under :- Sr.
No.
Writ Petitioner Date of Relation Date of Age at Delay in Date of Date of Reason Petiti Name Death Application Application Application Appointme Impugned in on of nt Order Notice No.
Parent WP/ Ajay 05.05.2 Son 07.08.2009 ~1 year 3 21.02.2017 16.01.2025 Delay 3068/ Ganesh months in Shirodkar applica tion WP/ Ashok 11.07.2 Son 12.07.2004 ~1 year 21.02.2017 16.01.2025 Delay 3069/ Kashinath (Reminderin Pilena 19.07.2016 applica and tion 04.10.2016) WP/ Ajay 27.04.2 Son 28.04.2010 1 day 21.02.2017 16.01.2025 Delay 3070/ Santosh in Bhavari applica tion WP/ Ajay 04.08.2 Son 10.10.2010 ~2 months 21.02.2017 16.01.2025 Delay 3071/ Ramesh in Lahange applica tion
4.
It is, thus, apparent that in all these Petitions, the delay in these cases are viz. of one year and three months (Ajay Ganesh Shirodkar), one year (Ashok Kashinath Pilena), one day (Ajay Santosh Bhavari) and two months (Ajay Ramesh Lahange). In the last case of Mr. Lahange, he made an Application two months after he became 18 years of age.
5.
The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad has strenuously opposed all these Petitions and submits that each of these Petitions deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. There is no dispute that as on the date of appointment of these Petitioners on compassionate basis, on 21st January, 2017, the limitation was of one year.
6.
The Government Resolutions dated 23rd August, 1996 and the Government Circular date 5th February, 2010, indicate instructions issued by the State Government as regards the obligation on the office in which the deceased Employee was working at the time of passing away, to apprise the family members regarding the compassionate appointment and get the documentation done by rendering assistance to the bereaved family so as to ensure that the application is tendered within limitation.
7.
The relevant clause as existing by virtue of the said Government Resolution and Government Circular, has been reiterated and reproduced below Clause 7(a) in the Government Resolution dated 21st September, 2017, which reads thus :- "(७) योजनेची माहिती देण्याची जबाबदारी :- (अ) आस्थापना अधि का-याने अनुकंपा तत्वावर हिनयुक्तीच्या योजनेची माहिती (योजनेचा उद्देश, पात्र नातेवाईक, अज, करण्याची मुदत, शैक्षणि0क अ,ता, टंकलेखन प्रमा0पत्र सादर करण्यास मुदत, अज, हिवीत नमुन्यात भर0े इ. माहिती) शासकीय कम,चा-याच्या मृत्यूनंतर १५ हिदवसानंतर किंकवा कुटुंबहिनवृत्तीवेतनाची कागदपत्रे पाठहिवताना शासकीय कम,चा-यांच्या कुटुंहिबयांना त्वरीत उपलब् करुन दे0े आवश्यक आे. तसेच सदर माहिती हिमळाल्याबाबत कुटुंबाकडून पोच घे0े आवश्यक आे. (शासन हिन0,य, हिद. २३.०८.१९९६ व शासन परिरपत्रक हिद.५.२.२०१०)"
8.
In the case of Roshan Vitthal Kale and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 (3) Mh.L.J. 470, this Court has held that whenever the policy requires that the Employer should inform the bereaved family about the opportunity of compassionate appointment, it should assist the family members in preparation of documents and submissions of the proposals. This Court has ruled that if there is any delay in the absence of any assistance by the office to the bereaved family or in the absence of the concerned officer of the department intimating the family and assisting it in preparation of the records, the benefit should be granted to the
bereaved family. In short, instead of following a pedantic approach, a pragmatic approach has to be accepted.
9.
The relevant Paragraph No.11 of Roshan Vitthal Kale (Supra), reads as under :- "11. We, therefore, find that when the Associate Professor was specifically cast with the duty of informing petitioner No.1 - Roshan that he is eligible for compassionate appointment and when the said Associate Professor failed to ensure that the application was prepared and accepted within a period of one year, petitioner No.1 apparently was left in the lurch. It is on these peculiar facts of this case that we find that petitioner No.1 was unable to file his application within limitation. Even today, petitioner No.1 and his two younger sisters are said to be living in abject poverty and he has to search for a job on each day so as to feed himself and his two sisters." 10.
The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad submits that the delay is admitted, though ranging from one day to one year and three months. He is contends that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad has passed the impugned orders, strictly as per the rules.
11.
We are, however, interfering with the impugned orders on the following grounds :-
(a) These Petitioners are from the Class-IV categories. They were not apprised of the limitation by any officer of the department and there was no assistance in preparation of the proposals for their submission within the limitation period.
(b) After the death of the bread earner, which is evident from the chart reproduced above, the Applications were kept pending for periods ranging from 8 years to 15 years. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy V/s. State of Orissa, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684, mandates that such Applications have to be decided by the Employer within six months and should not be kept pending. (c) The delay caused by the department between 8 years to 15 years, in passing orders on these applications would not truncate the rights of these Petitioners, rather has made them suffer the rigours of delay.
12.
Taking into account the above factors, we find that the Petitioners' cases rest on peculiar facts and circumstances. The fact that the Zilla Parishad, Thane did not apprise the bereaved family
and did not assist any of them in filing the Application for compassionate appointment, within one year despite the Government Resolution dated 23rd August, 1999 and the Government Circular dated 5th February, 2010, should not jeopardize the rights of these Petitioners. So also, the pendency of their Applications for periods ranging from 8 years to 15 years, should not dislodge their claims. Taking a holistic view of these factors, we conclude that these Petitioners, after 8 years of being in compassionate appointment, can not be thrown out of Employment. 13.
As such, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 16th January, 2025, stand quashed and set aside. We direct the Zilla Parishad to record that the appointments of these Petitioners shall be regularized and they shall be entitled for all such benefits, as are available to a regularized Employees. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)