HRISHIKESH HARIBHAU CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT AND ANR

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO.5349 OF 2024
Hrishikesh Haribhau Chavan                                ]
R/o. Daund, Pune – 413 801                                ] .. Petitioner
             Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,                              ]
   Through General Administrative Department,             ]
   Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.                          ]
2. The Chairman,                                          ]
   Maharashtra State Pathyapustak Nirmiti ani             ]
   Abyaskram Sanshodhan Mandal, Balbharti,                ]
   Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune – 411 004.                   ] .. Respondents


Mr. Hrishikesh Nabar, h/f. Ms. Gargi Warunjikar, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Smt. Shruti D. Vyas, Additional Government Pleader with Smt. G.R.
Raghuwanshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-State
of Maharashtra.
Mr. Prafulla D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.


                   CORAM             : SUMAN SHYAM &
                                       GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
                   RESERVED ON       : 21st September, 2026.

                   PRONOUNCED ON :        29th September, 2026.


JUDGMENT : { Per Gautam Ankhad, J. }


1.      Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Writ Petition is

heard finally with the consent of the parties.



                                    1/7
WP-5349-2024.doc                                                            Dixit
2.      Mr. Nabar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the

Petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground against the post

held by his late father, Shri Haribhau Bhagwant Chavan (“deceased”),

who was serving as a Senior Assistant Store Keeper with Respondent

No.2 and died on 28th August, 2019, while in service.



3.      After the demise of the Petitioner’s father, on 16 th September,

2019, an application was made by the Petitioner’s mother seeking

appointment of her elder son on compassionate grounds. This application

was rejected on 5th October, 2019 as the deceased employee belonged to

Category ‘B’ and under the then prevailing policy, compassionate

appointment was available only to the legal heirs of employees falling in

Categories ‘C’ and ‘D’. The said order of rejection was not challenged.



4.      On 3rd October, 2023, the Petitioner, who is the younger sibling,

submitted an application seeking his own appointment on compassionate

ground on account of pre-mature death of the father who died in harness

on 28th August, 2019. The Petitioner relied upon the Government

Resolution dated 27th September, 2021 contending that the benefit of

compassionate appointment was extended to employees falling in

Categories ‘A’ and ‘B’ also, with effect from 1st January, 2020.



                                    2/7
WP-5349-2024.doc                                                          Dixit
5.      The Petitioner’s application was rejected by the impugned

communication dated 21st December, 2023 on the ground that the

Petitioner’s claim was required to be considered with reference to the

policy governing the appointment on compassionate grounds at the time

of the death of the deceased employee, i.e, policy dated 21st September,

2017, whereby the compassionate appointment was confined to the legal

heirs of employees belonging to Categories ‘C’ and ‘D’ only. The

Petitioner was also informed that the Government Resolution dated 27 th

September, 2021 operated prospectively, i.e., from 1st January, 2020. The

impugned communication further refers to the postmortem findings as

taking the case outside the prescribed criteria. Aggrieved thereby, the

Petitioner has approached this Court.

5.      Mr. Nabar submits that the impugned communication is bad in law

as the Petitioner is entitled to the appointment as per the Government

Resolution dated 27th September, 2021. It is submitted that since the

Petitioner’s application was made in 2023, the benefit of the Government

Resolution dated 27th September, 2021 must be extended to him.


6.      Ms. Vyas, learned Additional Government Pleader, submits that

there is gross delay in filing of the Petition. That apart, Respondent No.2

has rightly rejected the Petitioner’s as well as his elder brother’s

application on the basis of the then prevailing policy. The learned AGP

                                   3/7
WP-5349-2024.doc                                                        Dixit
relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Awasthi1 in support of her above

submissions and submits that this Petition ought to be dismissed.



7.      We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. It

is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the

ordinary rule of recruitment. Its object is to mitigate hardship by

providing immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased

employee facing financial crisis on account of untimely death of the sole

bread earner of the family. The sense of immediacy is lost by the delays

in seeking such appointment. Compassionate appointment is not a vested

right which can be exercised at any time. As reiterated by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari2, the

authority is required to determine the eligibility of the family member

and the applicable scheme or rules governing such appointments.

Admittedly, the deceased was a Category ‘B’ employee. There is also no

dispute about the fact that, immediately following his death, the

Petitioner’s brother’s application for compassionate appointment was

rejected on the ground that the policy, then in force, did not extend the

benefit of compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of a Category ‘B’

employee. As noted above, this rejection has not been challenged. The

1
     (2022) 2 SCC 157
2
     (2025) 5 SCC 712.
                                   4/7
WP-5349-2024.doc                                                      Dixit
same yard-stick/policy dated 21st September, 2017 is applicable to the

Petitioner also. Therefore, his subsequent application, filed four years

later, cannot give rise to an independent or fresh entitlement, de hors the

policy in force at the time of the death of the Government Servant.



8.        The Petitioner’s reliance on the subsequent Government

Resolution dated 27th September, 2021 is misplaced, as the same is made

applicable in the background of the Covid-19 disruption. In any case, the

said Government Resolution expressly provides that the same would

operate only prospectively from 1st January, 2020. The subsequent

Resolution dated 27th September, 2021 cannot be treated as creating a

right or a fresh cause of action in Petitioner’s favour. The said Resolution

has no application as admittedly the Petitioner’s father passed away prior

to the date from which the aforesaid Resolution became operative.



9.        In State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Awasthi3, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar situation has

dismissed the application for appointment on compassionate ground

based on a subsequent policy and has held as follows:-

“3.      We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
    4.   The deceased employee died on 8-10-2015. At the time of death, he was working
         as a work-charged employee, who was paid the salary from the contingency fund.
         As per the policy/circular prevalent at the time of the death of the deceased
         employee i.e. Policy/Circular No. C-3-12/2013/1-3 dated 29-9-2014 in case of
3
          (2022) 2 SCC 157
                                               5/7
WP-5349-2024.doc                                                                          Dixit
      death of the employee working on work charge, his dependents/heirs were not
      entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground and were entitled to Rs.2
      lakhs as compensatory amount. Subsequently, the policy came to be amended vide
      Circular dated 31-8-2016, under which even in the case of death of the work-
      charged employee, his heirs/dependents will be entitled to the appointment on
      compassionate ground. Relying upon the subsequent Circular/Policy dated 31-8-
      2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed [Ashish Awasthi v. State
      of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1824] the appellants to consider the case of the
      respondent for appointment on compassionate ground.
 5.   As per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court for appointment on
      compassionate ground, the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased
      employee only is required to be considered and not the subsequent policy.
 6.   In Indian Bank v. Promila [Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 : (2020) 1
      SCC (L&S) 312], it is observed and held that claim for compassionate appointment
      must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise
      of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into. Similar view has
      been taken by this Court in State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Amit
      Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 68]. It is required to be noted
      that in Amit Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Amit Shrivas, (2020) 10 SCC 496 : (2021) 1
      SCC (L&S) 68] the very scheme applicable in the present case was under
      consideration and it was held that the scheme prevalent on the date of death of the
      deceased employee is only to be considered. In that view of the matter, the
      impugned judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine
      MP 1824] passed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and deserves to be
      quashed and set aside.
      …………………..

 8.   In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds,
      the impugned judgment and order [Ashish Awasthi v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC
      OnLine MP 1824] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya
      Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in WA No. 1559 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set
      aside by observing that the respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on
      compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent Circular/Policy dated 31-8-
      2016.”


10.     The principle laid down in the above decision, squarely applies to

the facts of the present case. Here too, the deceased employee died at a

time when the applicable policy did not extend compassionate

appointment to Category ‘B’ employees. Hence, the Petitioner’s claim

cannot be considered under the subsequent Resolution dated 27 th

September, 2021.



                                           6/7
WP-5349-2024.doc                                                                            Dixit
                            11.     For the above reasons, we find no merit in the Writ Petition. Writ

                            Petition No.5349 of 2024 is dismissed.


                            12.     Rule is discharged.


                            13.     There shall be no order as to costs.



                            [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]                       [ SUMAN SHYAM, J. ]




         Digitally signed
SNEHA by SNEHA
      ABHAY DIXIT
                                                                 7/7
ABHAY Date:
      2026.09.30
                            WP-5349-2024.doc                                                       Dixit
DIXIT 11:47:14
      +0530