VINOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Wardha, vide order dtd. 20/7/2022, declined to grant approval to the Petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground, in view of Policy set out in Government Resolutions dtd. 31/12/2002 and 21/9/2017. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this petition is preferred. Facts of the case

(2.) Petitioner's brother, Pundlik Budhbaware was Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No.4-School. While in service, he passed away on 8/4/2013. He was survived by mother, wife, minor son, brother (Petitioner herein) and married sister. Except married sister, others were unemployed and dependant on deceased-Pundlik. In the circumstances, on 26/4/2013, Petitioner being dependant, applied for grant of compassionate appointment. Petitioner's application was endorsed by Vijayalaxmi, widow of deceased-Pundlik. She had expressed her inability to accept employment on compassionate ground, but had consented to appointment of Petitioner in the Respondent No.4-School. Whereupon, the Respondent No.3-Society, appointed the Petitioner, as a Junior Clerk vide appointment order dtd. 30/4/2013, on probation for a period of two years on a permanent sanctioned post. After which, the Headmistress of the School sought sanction of Education Officer to Petitioner's appointment. The proposal was forwarded on 31/5/2013 to Education Officer. It was followed by reminder on 30/6/2014. It appears that even Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur vide communication dtd. 18/9/2014, directed Education Officer to consider the case of Petitioner for grant of approval. Whereafter, the Education Officer, by impugned order, refused to grant the approval, reason being, compassionate appointment Policy, set out in the Government Resolutions dtd. 31/12/2002 and 21/9/2017, disentitles the Petitioner from seeking compassionate appointment since deceased had left behind widow and minor son.

(3.) Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Thakare, learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 and 2, and Mr. Naik, learned Counsel for Respondents No.3 and 4.