NIKHIL JAYWANT KATRATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:7802-DB

                                                                            25-WP-605-2026.doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 605 OF 2026


               Nikhil Jaywant Katrat                                       ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State Of Maharashtra And Ors                            ...Respondents

                                                 ——————
               Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke a/w Mr. Rahul Rane, Mr. Shubham Vasekar, Mr. Sainath
               Patil, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. Hitesh Raninga, for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
               Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                                 ——————
                                                   Coram :     SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                               NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                                   Date      : AUGUST 19, 2026
               P. C. :

               1.        By this Petition, an exception is taken to the order dated 9 th July,

               2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Director of Education, rejecting

               the Petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds

               to the post of Lab Attendant/Peon/Clerk in the Respondent No. 5

               college, and for direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider and grant

               approval pursuant to the said appointment.

               2.        The Petition states that his father, Jaywant Sakharam Katrat, was

               employed as a Lab Attendant in Respondent No. 5 college. Due to

               severe brain and neurological ailments, he had underwent multiple eye



               Arya Chavan                          1 of 6
                                                        25-WP-605-2026.doc


surgeries that left him visually disabled and he was subsequently

diagnosed with throat cancer. Due to his medical condition, he was

unable to perform his daily functions as Lab Attendant, and after

serving for approximately 33 years, the Petitioner's father submitted an

application on 31st January, 2024 seeking voluntary retirement on the

ground of being medically unfit, which was accepted by Respondent No.

4, Managing Committee, and he was relieved from his service. In

accordance with the procedure, the Petitioner's father underwent the

requisite medical examination at various departments of the

Government Medical College and Hospital, Miraj, pursuant to which

medical certificate was issued on 15 th April, 2024, declaring him

medically unfit for service, facilitating his voluntary retirement on

medical grounds. The Petitioner's father came to be relieved on 27 th

April, 2024, and subsequently, a biopsy report dated 6 th July, 2024

conclusively confirmed the throat cancer. The Petitioner's father

expired on 5th August, 2024, and the Petitioner submitted an application

on 9th September, 2024 to the Respondent No. 5 seeking appointment

on compassionate ground, which came to be rejected by the impugned

order in view of the Government Resolution(“GR”) dated 22 August,

2005.

3.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the

Petitioner's father was declared to be medically unfit by reason of which


Arya Chavan                     2 of 6
                                                        25-WP-605-2026.doc


he sought voluntary retirement and within a period of three and a half

months thereafter, the Petitioner's father expired. He submits that the

reason why the application for appointment on compassionate ground

came to be rejected was the GR dated 22 nd August, 2005, which was

considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad

Bench, where the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that if the records

show that the employee was medically unfit and not in a position to

work, the legal heir is entitled to compassionate appointment, even if

the employee had been relieved from services and had subsequently

expired. He submits that the said decision was not considered by the

Respondent No. 3 while rejecting the application seeking voluntary

retirement.

4.      Learned AGP would submit that as per the GR dated 22 nd August,

2005, the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground to provide

immediate financial aid to the families of employees, who expired while

in service has been outlined. He would further point out that Clause 2(1)

of the said GR changed the earlier position and the concession granted

when a government servant is declared medically unfit for service due

to suffering from cancer or accident, etc. came to be withdrawn, and

that the appointment is only applicable to the heirs of deceased

employees working in class C and D. He submits that the impugned

order has been passed by taking into consideration the said GR, which is


Arya Chavan                      3 of 6
                                                                                25-WP-605-2026.doc


applicable and Petition does not deserve any interference.

5.       We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

6.       There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner's father was

relieved from his service by virtue of Managing Committee Resolution

dated 20th March, 2024 in view of the application dated 31 st January,

2024 seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds. We have

perused the application seeking voluntary retirement, which specifically

mentions about the medical ailments of the Petitioner's father, which

has rendered him incapacitated for discharging his duties. The

Petitioner has also placed on record the medical certificate dated 15 th

April, 2024 as well as biopsy report dated 6 th July, 2024, which

conclusively confirms throat cancer. The Petitioner's father expired

three and a half months after he was relieved from his service. The

Respondent No. 3 has applied the GR dated 22 nd August, 2005 to reject

the Petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.

7.       In the case of Anita Bhujang Wagalgave And Others vs The State

of Maharashtra And Others1, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court ,

Aurangabad Bench, considered some what similar facts, where the

father of the Petitioner therein expired within three months after being

relieved from the service due to medical condition. In that case, the

order was identically premised on the GR dated 22 nd August, 2005,

1    WP No. 2089 of 2021 decided on 12th April, 2022 by Aurangabad High Court


Arya Chavan                                  4 of 6
                                                          25-WP-605-2026.doc


wherein the contention was raised about the change in the

government's policy with regard to appointment on compassionate

basis. The Hon’ble Division Bench noted the earlier decision which arose

out of an order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (“MAT”), which

did not agree with the Clause 2 of Government Resolution dated 22 nd

August, 2005, and concluded that the same is discriminatory. The

Hon’ble Division Bench noted that the view of the MAT was upheld by

the Division Bench of this Court.

8.      After considering the settled position in law and the facts of that

case, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that the GR of 2005 has been held

to be inapplicable by the MAT as well as by the Division Bench of this

Court, and there is no impediment from being considered for

appointment on compassionate basis.

9.      As this Court has held that Clause 2 of the GR dated 22 nd August,

2005 is discriminatory, we are respectfully bound by the said decision. In

the present case, it is not disputed that the Petitioner's father was

suffering from serious medical ailments by virtue of which his physical

condition deteriorated and he was incapacitated from discharging his

duties. We are inclined to adopt the same course, which was adopted by

the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Anita Bhujang Wagalgave

And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And Others (supra). The

undisputed facts about the medical ailments and the applicability of the


Arya Chavan                         5 of 6
                                                             25-WP-605-2026.doc


GR dated 22nd August, 2005 to reject the application, which GR has been

held to be discriminatory and not applicable, would entitle the

Petitioner to the relief of compassionate appointment.

10.     In light of the above discussion, following directions are passed :


      (i) The petitioner to be enlisted in the list of eligible

      candidates for compassionate appointment considering his

      representation and his seniority to be construed from that

      date.

      (ii) In event the post is vacant, and the Petitioner is eligible for

      being appointed to the said post, the Respondent No. 4

      management to pass an appropriate resolution, and appoint

      the Petitioner on the said post, and accordingly send a

      proposal to Respondent No. 3 for approval.


11.     The Petition is allowed in the above terms.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                       [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Arya Chavan                         6 of 6