Bombay High Court
JAYANT RAJU AMBHOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court quashed the Tribunal’s order and directed the competent authority to determine the eligibility of both the petitioner and the step‑mother on compassionate grounds.
Summary
The petitioner, Jayant Raju Ambhore, sought appointment on compassionate ground after his father, a police constable, died in service; his application was rejected because his step‑mother (Respondent No.3) had a pending application for the same. The petitioner challenged the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s order dismissing his claim, arguing that he is entitled to appointment despite the pending application of another legal heir. The Tribunal held that no provision allowed multiple applications by different heirs and dismissed the petition. The High Court found that the Tribunal erred, noting that the eligibility of both the petitioner and the step‑mother should be determined by the competent authority (Respondent No.2). Consequently, the Court quashed the Tribunal’s order and directed Respondent No.2 to decide the eligibility of both parties within eight weeks, after giving them a hearing. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a legal heir is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground when another heir has a pending application for the same.
- Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal erred in holding that no provision permits consideration of multiple applications by different heirs.
- Whether the competent authority should decide the eligibility of both applicants.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- eligibility
- Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
- legal heir
- government service
- waiting list
- appointment on compassionate ground
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24648-DB
{1} wp1136-26.doc
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1136 OF 2026
Jayant Raju Ambhore PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent - State
....…
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026
ORDER :
1. By this Petition, the Petitioner, challenges order dated 28 th
February, 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
in Original Application No. 24 of 2022 and further seeks direction to
Respondents No.1 and 2 to delete name of Respondent No.3 from
the waiting list prepared for appointment on compassionate ground
and to include his name.
2. None for Respondent No.3, though served.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned AGP
for the State.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, his father was serving as
{2} wp1136-26.doc
Police Constable, who expired while in service on 14 th August, 2007.
At the time of death of his father, the Petitioner was minor. He
attained majority in the year 2014 and immediately he applied for
appointment on compassionate ground. His request is turned down
by Respondents No.1 and 2, on the ground that application of his
step mother – Respondent No.3, for appointment on compassionate
ground is already pending.
5. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No. 24 of
2022. The same is dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence, the present
Writ Petition.
6. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that, “The
second wife also preferred an application in the year 2007 itself and the same is
pending. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire pension is being
received by the second wife of the deceased Government servant. In the
circumstances, according to learned counsel, the present applicant, who is son from
first wife of the deceased Government servant, is entitled for appointment on
compassionate ground”. The Tribunal, therefore, held that, the
Petitioner has failed to bring to its notice any provision showing that
when one application seeking appointment on compassionate
ground presented by one legal heir of the deceased is pending for
consideration, any other legal heir of the deceased can also file the
application and that can be considered by the Government.
{3} wp1136-26.doc
7. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that,
Respondent No.2 should decide the eligibility of the Petitioner and
Respondent No.3, to claim appointment on compassionate ground.
8. Learned AGP submits that, the eligibility will be decided by
Respondent No.2.
9. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts, we quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 28 th February, 2023 passed by
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.22 of
2024.
10. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the eligibility of the
Petitioner and Respondent No.3, in accordance with the law, rules
and government policy, on its own merits, after giving the
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and Respondent No.3,
within a period of 8 weeks from the date of first appearance of
Petitioner and Respondent No.3.
11. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
drp/wp1136-26.doc
Checking your session…