Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Substitution in Compassionate Appointments Essential to Humanitarian Goals: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court’s judgment validates policy allowing substitution beyond age limit and maintains a wait list for compassionate appointments.

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has upheld the contentious clauses in the Maharashtra Government’s policy on compassionate appointments, affirming the legality of substitutions even after crossing the age limit of 45 years and the maintenance of a waiting list. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Anil S. Kilor, Anil L. Pansare, and M.W. Chandwani, addresses the critical issues surrounding the compassionate appointments policy and aims to strike a balance between providing immediate succor to bereaved families and maintaining administrative efficiency.

A series of writ petitions challenged clauses 3.11 and 3.21 of the Government Resolution dated 21/09/2017, issued by the State of Maharashtra. These clauses set an upper age limit of 45 years for compassionate appointments and permitted the substitution of legal heirs under specific circumstances. The petitioners, comprising widows, children, and other dependents of deceased employees, argued that these restrictions were arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Court Observations and Views

Credibility of the Compassionate Appointments Policy

The court scrutinized the purpose and implementation of the compassionate appointments policy, reiterating its objective to provide immediate financial relief to families of deceased employees. The bench highlighted the humanitarian intent behind such policies, designed to enable families to tide over sudden financial crises resulting from the untimely death of the breadwinner.

In addressing the contentious issue of substitution, the court noted that “the substitution of one legal heir for another does not contravene the object of the compassionate appointment policy.” The bench reasoned that as long as the substitution results in only one family member receiving the appointment, it aligns with the policy’s objective to provide relief without violating the principles of merit-based employment.

The court also examined the provision setting an upper age limit of 45 years for such appointments. It was argued that rigidly enforcing this age limit could result in deserving candidates being unjustly excluded. The bench observed, “The age limit should not negate the core objective of providing timely financial assistance to bereaved families. Substitution beyond the age limit of 45 years should be permissible if it continues to serve the policy’s humanitarian goals.”

The judgment extensively referenced established legal principles and past Supreme Court rulings on compassionate appointments. The court underscored that compassionate appointments are an exception to the general rule of merit-based public employment and should be treated with the necessary flexibility to achieve their humanitarian purpose. The court stated, “The compassionate appointments policy is designed to alleviate immediate distress. Denial of substitution or rigid adherence to age limits undermines this purpose.”

Justice Anil S. Kilor remarked, “Substitution of legal heirs in compassionate appointments is in harmony with the policy’s objective. It ensures that the family’s need for financial support is met, even if the primary applicant crosses the age limit.”

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s judgment reaffirms the compassionate appointments policy’s intent and emphasizes a flexible approach to its implementation. By allowing substitutions and maintaining a wait list, the court ensures that bereaved families receive the necessary support without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. This landmark decision is expected to provide clarity and direction for future cases, reinforcing the legal framework for compassionate appointments in Maharashtra.

 

Date of Decision-May 28, 2024

Kalpana Others v. The State of Maharashtra & Others

Similar News