Bombay High Court
HAWAN SUDHAKAR BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the respondent must decide the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds within the time frame prescribed by the order.
Summary
The petitioner, Hawan Sudhakar Bhosale, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra to appoint him on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, a peon, in 2015. He had submitted a representation in September 2015, complied with the requirement of a legal heir certificate, and obtained the stepmother's consent, but the respondent agency failed to consider his application despite a 2024 policy permitting such appointments. The petitioner reiterated his request in October 2024 and, after receiving no response, approached the High Court in January 2025. The Court examined the record, noted that the petitioner's application was timely and that the respondent had no valid reason to delay consideration. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondent to decide the application within four weeks and to grant a hearing on 31 August 2026, directing a final decision within two weeks thereafter. The petition was disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent authority is obligated to decide the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds under the applicable government policy and Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether the delay in processing the petitioner's application violates principles of natural justice and administrative efficiency.
Subjects
- Compassionate appointment
- Article 226
- Public employment
- Administrative law
- Delay in decision
- Government policy
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS RANE
RANE Date:
2026.08.20
20:49:25
WP 1285-25.DOC
+0530
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1285 OF 2025
Hawan Sudhakar Bhosale ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Onkar Mane for Petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 19 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeks a direction to the respondents to provide him employment on
compassionate grounds.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are : In the year 1985, the petitioner’s father Late
Sudhakar Haribhau Bhosale was appointed to the post of Peon with respondent
no. 3. He died in harness on 25 August, 2015. On 10 September, 2015, the
petitioner made a representation to respondent no. 3 requesting to appoint him
on compassionate grounds. Certain queries were raised by respondent no. 3,
including a requirement that the petitioner submit a legal heir certificate. The
petitioner thereafter took appropriate steps to obtain legal heir certificate by
approaching this Court by filing Miscellaneous Petition No. 81 of 2019 and
Miscellaneous Petition No. 132 of 2018, in which orders are stated to have been
Page 1 of 3
19 August 2026
WP 1285-25.DOC
passed by this Court. The petitioner’s stepmother also had given her no objection
to the petitioner being appointed on compassionate grounds. The State
Government is stated to have taken a policy decision dated 7 March, 2024
whereby respondent no. 3 can grant appointment on compassionate grounds.
There were certain further compliances which were undertaken by the petitioner,
to which our attention is drawn to communication dated 31 May, 2024 (Exhibit
‘N’) and further communication dated 12 June, 2024 (Exhibit “O”).
3. The case of the petitioner is that although all requisite compliances have
been made, his application has still not been considered. In these circumstances,
the petitioner made a representation dated 14 October, 2024 requesting
respondent no. 3 to decide his application for appointment on compassionate
grounds. As there was no response, the present petition came to be filed on 29
January, 2025.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. We find that the petitioner’s application dated 10 September, 2015 for
appointment on compassionate grounds was diligently pursued by him and was
made within time. It is also not the case of respondent no. 3 that it cannot
consider the petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate grounds.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly
submits that the respondents be directed to decide the petitioner’s application for
appointment on compassionate grounds. In this view of the matter, we are
inclined to dispose of this petition in terms of following order:
Page 2 of 3
19 August 2026
WP 1285-25.DOC
ORDER
(i) The petitioner’s application for appointment on
compassionate grounds shall be decided by respondent no.
3 as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a
period of four weeks from today.
(ii) The petitioner shall approach the office of
respondent no. 3 on 31 August, 2026 at 11 a.m. with a
copy of this order. On such day, the petitioner be granted
a hearing. Respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to call for
any other information and fix a convenient date for any
further hearing.
(iii) Respondent No.3 shall take an appropriate decision
on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law
within a period of two weeks from 31 August 2026.
(iv) All contentions of the parties in this regard are
expressly kept open.
6. It is clarified that we have not delved on any of the issues except what we
have observed hereinabove.
7. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
19 August 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.