RAVINDRA BISEN GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are legal heirs/dependents of ex-employees of the respondent No. 2-Corporation of City of Nagpur, are seeking writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to grant them employment on compassionate basis and to set aside the communications/orders dated 23-8-2002 and 25-8-2002. The respondent No. 1 before us is the State of Maharashtra. The mother of the petitioner No. 1 by name Smt. Sugandha Goswami was working as mazdoor (Labour) in Garden Department and on 1-7-1995, in an accident her right leg was injured and it is stated that she was bedridden for about two years and thereafter she took retirement with effect from 9-7-1998 which came to be granted by an order dated 29-6-1998. Similarly, Shri Ramsahay Shukla, the father of the petitioner No. 2 was working as Meter Reader in Water Works department and it is alleged that because of his ailment and hyper tension, he became incapable of performing his duties as per report of Medical Officer of nagpur Municipal Corporation dated 31-5-1996. He accordingly took retirement with effect from 30th August, 1997. Both these persons were granted invalid pension under Rule 68 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

(2.) The petitioners state that as per Government Policy dated 23-8-1996, dependents of Class-Ill and Class-IV employees, who are required to retire on medical ground upon completion of 55 and 57 years respectively, are entitled to be absorbed in employment on compassionate ground. They state that accordingly benefit has been given to one Shri Narayan Hazare and his relative. For that purpose, our attention has been invited to Resolution dated 23-6-1998. It is stated that thereafter on 31-12-1999, the respondent No. 2-Corporation passed resolution holding that the petitioners are otherwise eligible for grant of employment on compassionate basis. The Corporation then referred the matter to the State Government on 14-8-2000 and as government was not taking any decision upon it, Writ Petition No. 3613 of 2002 was filed before this Court seeking directions against the respondents for grant of appointment orders. On 15-1-2003, this Court passed orders in the said writ petition hoping that the government would take appropriate decision on proposal of Corporation within eight weeks. The petitioners thereafter submitted representations but government did not take any decision and the petitioners state that thereafter government did not accept the proposal of the Corporation on the ground that parents of the petitioners have not put in requisite qualifying service. It is in this background that they have approached this Court. By amendment, it has been pointed out that the insistence of the Corporation and the Government that the petitioners have to fulfil requirement of Clause 2 (A) of Resolution dated 23-8-1996 is unwarranted and there is no nexus between the age limit prescribed in the said Government resolution dated 23-8-1996 and the object sought to be achieved by putting such condition. The Resolution of Nagpur Municipal Corporation dated 23-6-1998 is pressed in service to point out that similarly circumstanced dependents have been given employment on compassionate ground and thus there is hostile discrimination against the present petitioners.

(3.) Advocate Shri Anand Parchure, in this background, has contended that clause 2 (A) of the Resolution dated 23-8-1996 must be declared as arbitrary and illegal as the requirement of retirement before 55 and 57 years in order to become eligible to claim the employment has got no nexus with the object of the scheme. He further contends that by Resolution dated 23-6-1998, the Corporation has relaxed this requirement in case of other dependents similarly situated and, therefore, very same treatment must be accorded to the present petitioners. It is stated that person whose name appears at serial No. 1 in said resolution was given benefit of scheme. It is, therefore, contended that not providing employment to the present petitioners, therefore, cannot be accepted and appropriate writ must be issued to the respondents for providing work and employment to the petitioners.