APARNA NARENDRA ZAMBRE Vs. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the heirs and family members of deceased Mohan Kulkarni, who was working as an Assistant Engineer in Mhaishal Pump House No. 2, who died in harness on 8 th September, 2003, leaving behind petitioner No. 2 as his widow and two daughters. Petitioner No. 1 is one of the daughters of deceased Mohan. At the relevant time, she was unmarried. The other daughter was already married in November, 2002, before the said Mohan Kulkarni died in harness.

(2.) After the death of Mohan, his widow, petitioner No. 2 made an application on 29 th July, 2004 addressed to the Executive Engineer, Mhaishal Pump House No. 2 at Sangli, requesting to appoint her unmarried daughter, petitioner No.1, to the post of Junior Clerk or any other suitable post on compassionate ground. She further stated that she has no objection if petitioner No.1, who was her unmarried daughter, were to be given such appointment. The said proposal was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Krishna-Koyna Upsa Sinchan Project Board at Sangli by the Executive Engineer on 27 th August, 2004. On 10 th September, 2004, respondent No. 1 forwarded the said application to the Collector, Sangli, for necessary action. The name of petitioner No. 1 came to be included in the Wait List of candidates to be appointed on compassionate ground prepared by the Collector as well as the Department. By letter dated 10 th December, 2007, respondent No. 1 informed petitioner No. 1 that her name was included in the Wait List prepared by the Office of the Collector and was at Serial No. 146 and at Serial No. 10 in the Wait List prepared by the Department some time in August, 2005. Petitioner No. 1 was also informed to remain present in his office on 17 th December, 2007 with relevant documents. It is the case of the petitioners that necessary documents were produced by the petitioners. The petitioners, once again, received a communication dated 2 nd June, 2009, calling upon them to remain present in the office with the relevant documents. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 went to the office of the respondents on 3 rd June, 2009, and, again, on 5 th June, 2009. On 8 th June, 2009, the Collector called upon respondent No. 1 to give para-wise remarks on the proposal of petitioner No. 1 and to submit a detailed report. Respondent No. 1, once again, confirmed the position that name of petitioner No. 1 is included in the Wait List prepared prior to 22 nd August, 2005. Petitioner No. 1 was called upon to submit undertaking in the prescribed format and to furnish necessary information. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 submitted the undertaking / affidavit on 31 st July, 2009 as per the requirements specified in the written communication received by her dated 13 th July, 2009. The petitioners were shocked and surprised to receive communication from the Executive Engineer dated 10 th November, 2010. It is mentioned therein that petitioner No. 2, being widow, was getting monthly pension, and, in the view of the Department, she was financially sound and was not dependent on petitioner No. 1. Then, referring to Government Resolution dated 26 th October, 1994, it was stated that petitioner No.1 was ineligible to be appointed on compassionate ground, being married daughter of the deceased employee. As per the said Government Resolution, besides the other family members mentioned therein, only an unmarried daughter is eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. This decision is challenged in the present petition.

(3.) The petitioners not only pray for quashing and setting aside of the said decision, but also pray for direction against the respondents to forthwith appoint petitioner No. 1 to a suitable post with effect from 29 th July, 2004, along with back wages and consequential benefits.