VISHAL KISAN JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:2666-DB




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 14568 OF 2025

                                     Vishal Kisan Jadhav
                                           VERSUS
                   The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and others

           Mr. P. B. Patil (Borse), Advocate for petitioner
           Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for respondent-State

                                            CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi &
                                                    Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.
                                            DATE        : 17th January, 2026

           ORDER (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar) :-

           1.           The present writ petition is instituted under Article 226 of the

           Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash

           and set aside the communication dated 18.12.2024, issued by the Chief

           Officer, Municipal Council, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, whereby the claim of

           the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been

           rejected. The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus directing the

           respondents to appoint him on the post of “Assistant Teacher” on

           compassionate ground in the secondary school run and managed by the

           Municipal Council, or in the alternative, to appoint him as Shikshan

           Sevak for the initial period of three years. Ancillary prayers are made

           seeking     compensation   for   allegedly   inaction   on   the   petitioner's

           application since the year 2005, and for inclusion of the petitioner's




           WP-14568-2025.odt                                                        1 of 7
name in the waiting list with retrospective seniority from 31.07.2007.



2.            The factual matrix is largely undisputed. The petitioner's

father, late Kishan Jadhav, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the

year 1983 in a fully aided secondary school run by the Municipal Council,

Amalner. His employment was permanent in nature and governed by the

applicable service rules. He expired in harness due to heart disease in

the year 2005, leaving behind his widow and three sons, including the

present petitioner, who was the youngest and was then aged about 18

years and pursuing higher secondary education. Immediately after the

death of employee, the elder brother of the petitioner submitted an

application dated 11.02.2005, seeking appointment on compassionate

ground. The application was neither persued to its logical end nor

decided by the authorities. Subsequently, the elder brother secured

employment in another institution in the year 2006, and started residing

separately.



3.            The petitioner thereafter submitted his own application dated

31.07.2007, followed by another application dated 29.10.2007, after

obtaining consent from his mother and siblings. He also approached the

Education     Officer   and   the   Deputy   Director   of   Education.     By

communication dated 28.12.2007, the Education Officer called upon the

Municipal Council to initiate action in accordance with Government


WP-14568-2025.odt                                                         2 of 7
Resolution dated 25.11.2005 and 10.04.2007, governing compassionate

appointments. Despite this, no appointment was granted on the ground

of an alleged ban on recruitment. Ultimately, by order dated 19.07.

2011, the petitioner's claim came to be rejected on the ground that no

vacant post was available and the family was not found to be in financial

distress. This rejection order was never challenged by the petitioner

before any forum.



4.          The petitioner continued to submit representations from time

to time. Reliance is placed on a resolution of the Municipal Council dated

16.02.2016, wherein it was resolved that one post of Assistant Teacher

had fallen vacant and that the petitioner possessed the requisite

qualifications, and that a proposal be forwarded to the Education Officer.

However,   no   appointment   followed.   Eventually,   by   the   impugned

communication dated 18.12.2024, the Municipal Council rejected the

claim once again, holding that the application was not made within

stipulated time as per the Government Resolution dated 31.12.2002, and

that the claim had already been rejected in the year 2011.



5.          The learned AGP appearing for the State opposed the

petitioner by submitting that compassionate appointment is not a vested

right and is governed strictly by policy. It was contended that the

application was grossly delayed, that the financial condition of the family


WP-14568-2025.odt                                                      3 of 7
as on the relevant date did not warrant compassionate appointment, that

the petitioner was gainfully employed for several years, and that the

rejection order dated 19.07.2011, having attained finality, the present

challenge was barred by delay and latches.



6.            Having considered the rival submissions and perused the

record,     we   find   no    merits       in   the   petition.    Appointments      on

compassionate ground in Municipal Councils in the state of Maharashtra

are governed by the Government Resolution dated 31.12.2002, as

amended by subsequent resolutions dated 25.11.2005 and 10.04.2007.

These resolutions clearly stipulate that an application for compassionate

appointment must ordinarily be made within 90 days from the date of

death of the employee, and in any case, not later than one year. The

scheme is intended to provide immediate succour to the family of a

deceased employee who is suddenly deprived of its sole breadwinner and

is facing financial needs. It is not a scheme for providing employment as

a matter of course or as a matter of deferred benefits.



7.            The law on the subject is well settled. In Umesh Kumar

Nagpal vs State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court     authoritatively    held   that    compassionate         appointment   is   an

exception to the general rule of public employment and is intended only

to meet the immediate financial crisis of the family. It was categorically


WP-14568-2025.odt                                                                 4 of 7
observed that such appointment cannot be claimed after the crisis is

over, nor it can be treated as a wasted or hereditary right. This principle

has consistently reiterated in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Shashi

Kumar, 2019 (3) SCC 653, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that delay defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment, and

the stale claims cannot be entertained.



8.          In the present case, the petitioner admittedly applied for

compassionate appointment for the first time in July 2007, nearly two

years after the death of his father. Even assuming that the earlier

application by elder brother could be considered within time, there is no

material to demonstrate that the petitioner's application was a valid

substitution of that claim. The elder brother neither formally withdrew his

application nor nominated the petitioner in accordance with the policy.

Mere abandonment of a claim does not automatically revive or transfer

eligibility to another dependent after the lapse of prescribed period.



9.          More    importantly,   the   petitioner's   claim   was   expressly

rejected by a reasoned order dated 19.07.2011. The order was never

challenged and has attained finality. It is a settled principle of law that

once an order rejecting compassionate appointment is not challenged

within a reasonable time, repeated representations do not give rise to a

fresh cause of action. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Jacob vs.


WP-14568-2025.odt                                                         5 of 7
Director of Geology and Mining, 2008 (10) SCC 115, held that stale

claims cannot be revived by making repeated representations and that

Courts should not direct reconsideration of such claims after long delays.

The same principle was reiterated in Union of India vs MK Sarkar,

2010 (2) SCC 59.



10.         The petitioner's contention that vacant posts were available

at various points of time also does not advance his case. Availability of a

vacancy by itself does not confer a right to compassionate appointment

unless all policy conditions are satisfied within the prescribed time frame.

Compassionate appointment cannot be converted into a mode of regular

recruitment. Furthermore, it has come on record that the petitioner has

been working as an Assistant Teacher on an honorarium basis for several

years. This clearly indicates that the family has survived the alleged

financial crisis long ago. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

Maharashtra vs Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1327,

has held that gainful employment of the claimant is a relevant factor and

negates the claim of continuing financial distress.



11.         The object of compassionate appointment is immediate.

Entertaining a claim after 15 to 19 years from the date of death of the

employee would amount to defeating the very purpose of the scheme

and would open floodgates for stale and speculative claims. The writ


WP-14568-2025.odt                                                      6 of 7
jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to unsettle matters that have

attained finality long ago, particularly when no explanation worth

acceptance is offered for such inordinate delay.



12.           We therefore find that the impugned communication dated

18.12.2024,     does    not   suffer   from   any   illegality,   arbitrariness   or

perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. The petition is barred by delay and latches, the claim stands

concluded by the rejection order dated 19.07.2011, and the petitioner

has failed to establish any subsisting financial exigency as required under

the compassionate appointment policy.



13.           Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be

no orders as to cost.




(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)                     (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

B. S. Joshi




WP-14568-2025.odt                                                             7 of 7