Application for Compassionate appointment on 29.10.2012.= 02.04.2014, the Government released a Supplementary Order to this Resolution stating that all employment authorities shall take action every year to fill up 6 the posts reserved for compassionate appointment upto 10% of vacant posts of Class C and D from 2012. This reveals that the Government was continuing to make appointments on compassionate grounds despite the ban of 2005, and in fact had increased the number of posts earmarked for compassionate appointment to 10%. 6.3.A perusal of the Order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Education Officer reveals that during the hearing, Respondent No. 3 – President of the Society stated that the Society was ready to appoint the Appellant on compassionate grounds, if the Education Officer grants the permission. The Education Officer had in the proceedings dated 31.05.2013 recorded that there are 2 post of Junior Clerk vacant in the two Schools run by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, where the Appellant could be appointed. This fact has not been either adverted to, or considered by the High Court, in the impugned judgment. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the Appeal, and set aside the Judgment passed by the High Court on 19.11.2014 in W.P. No. 3520 of 2014. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to submit the proposal for appointment of the Appellant before the Respondent No. 2 – 7 the Education Officer within one month, so that necessary orders can be passed on the application of the appellant. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6626    OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3500 of 2015)
Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale                            …Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra through
Principal Secretary & Ors.                …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the final
Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2014 passed in W.P. No.
3520 of 2014 by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court,
whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed.
2. The background facts briefly stated are as under:
2.1.The father of the Appellant – Late Shri Nagraoji Ugale was
working as a Peon (Class IV) with the School run by the
Nagpur Pradesh Education Society. While he was in service,
the   father   of   the   Appellant   suddenly   expired   of   a   heart
1
attack on 13.10.2012. Since the father of the Appellant was
the only breadwinner in the family, the Appellant filed an
Application for Compassionate appointment on 29.10.2012.
This was followed up by further letters on 30.10.2012 and
31.10.2012.
2.2.Respondent No. 2 – the Education Officer vide  letter dated
06.05.2013   called   upon   the   Appellant   for   a   hearing   on
17.05.2013 to consider the application for appointment on
Compassionate   Grounds.   Respondent   Nos.   3   and   4
remained absent from the hearing on 17.05.2013, which was
re­scheduled for 31.05.2013.
The Respondent  No. 2 – the Education  Officer  vide
Order dated 31.05.2013 recorded that the President of the
Society was ready to grant compassionate appointment to
the   Appellant,   if   the   Education   Officer   grants   the
permission.   The   Education   Officer   recorded   that   the
Appellant possessed the educational qualification of S.S.C.
and   had   passed   the   computer   examination   MS­CIT.
Furthermore,   there   were   two   Schools   being   run   by   the
Nagpur Pradesh Education Society, and each of the Schools
had one post of Junior Clerk vacant. The Education Officer
2
directed that the proposal for approval be submitted to his
office within one month.
2.3.In   response,   Respondent   No.   3   issued   a   communication
dated 13.07.2013 to the Education Officer stating that a
Government   Resolution   dated   22.03.2012   contemplates   a
ban   on   recruitment   on   non­teaching   employees   on
compassionate ground, which was relaxed in respect of the
wait­list candidates prior to 31.12.2011.
2.4.The   Government   of   Maharashtra  vide  Resolution   dated
22.03.2012   bearing   No.   PDN­2012/Pra.   Kra.   15/12
Financial   Development­1,   continued   the   ban   imposed   on
22.08.2005 for recruitment of posts in ‘Group C and Group
D’   cadres   in   Government   Departments/Offices   and
Government Aided Institutions with a view to control the
administrative expenditure on the Recommendations of the
6
th Pay Commission. The Recruitment ban on candidates in
the compassionate list after 22.08.2005 was continued.
The   Government  vide  Resolution   dated   22.03.2012
relaxed   the   ban   for   candidates   in   the   waiting   list   of
appointments on compassionate ground till 31.12.2011.
2.5.The   Government   of   Maharashtra  vide  Resolution   dated
01.03.2014 bearing No. AKP­1014/Pra. Kra. 34/8 revised its
3
decision dated 22.08.2005 which had restricted recruitment
to 5% in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ on the basis of compassionate
appointment, and increased the limit to 10% of posts.
2.6.Since the representations of the Appellant were not granted,
W.P. No. 3520 of 2014 was filed by the Appellant before the
High Court, praying inter alia for the issuance of a direction
to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to appoint the Appellant on
compassionate grounds.
2.7.The   High   Court  vide  final   Judgment   and   Order   dated
19.11.2014   held   that   the   relief   sought   by   the   Appellant
cannot be granted. The Appellant could not be appointed on
compassionate grounds since the family of the Appellant had
received monetary benefits of Rs. 7,50,000/­ towards the
statutory dues of the deceased i.e. Provident Fund, Gratuity
and Leave Encashment. It was also held that the mother of
the   Appellant   was   receiving   a   monthly   pension   of   Rs.
11,030/­. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed
by the Appellant.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment of the High Court, the
Appellant has filed the present Special Leave Petition before
4
this Court. This Court issued Notice to the Respondents vide
Order dated 12.02.2015.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants  inter alia  submitted that
the Appellant is qualified and eligible to be appointed to the
post of Peon (Class IV). There is a vacancy for the post of Peon
(Class IV) in the two Schools run by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
The Appellant and his family are facing a serious financial
crisis due to the death of his father. The grant of monetary
benefits on the death of his father towards provident fund,
gratuity and leave encashment cannot be a ground for denial of
appointment on compassionate grounds.
5. Learned   Counsel   for   Respondent   Nos.   3   and   4  inter   alia
submitted that there are two Schools run by Respondent Nos.
3 and 4. Prior to the session commencing 2013­14, there were
9 Class IV posts available in both the schools. Out of the said 9
posts, 7 posts were already filled up. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
did not get permission from the Education Department to fill
up the remaining two posts. The family of the Appellant had
received a sum of Rs. 7,53,243 towards monetary benefits at
the time of death of the Appellant’s father.
5
Apart   from   the   monetary   benefits,   the   mother   of   the
Appellant   has   been   receiving   Rs.   11,020   towards   monthly
pension.   The   Appellant   cannot   claim   compassionate
appointment as a matter of right.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have
perused the material on record.
6.1.In the present case, the Appellant admittedly possesses the
educational qualifications for the post of Peon. The Appellant
has an S.S.C. Degree along with MS. C.I.T.
6.2.Even though Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 contended that there
is   a   ban   since   2005   for   appointment   on   compassionate
grounds, a relaxation was initially granted for persons on
the wait list till 31.12.2011.
Thereafter,  vide  Government   Resolution   dated
01.03.2014   bearing   No.   AKP­1014/Pra.   Kra.   34/8   the
Government   of   Maharashtra   decided   to   increase   the
recruitment   of  ‘Group   C  and   D’  posts   on   compassionate
ground from 5% to 10%.
On   02.04.2014,   the   Government   released   a
Supplementary   Order   to   this   Resolution   stating   that   all
employment authorities shall take action every year to fill up
6
the posts reserved for compassionate appointment upto 10%
of vacant posts of Class C and D from 2012.
This reveals that  the Government was continuing to
make appointments on compassionate grounds despite the
ban of 2005, and in fact had increased the number of posts
earmarked for compassionate appointment to 10%.
6.3.A   perusal   of   the   Order   dated   31.05.2013  passed   by   the
Education   Officer   reveals   that   during   the   hearing,
Respondent No. 3 – President of the Society stated that the
Society   was   ready   to   appoint   the   Appellant   on
compassionate grounds, if the Education Officer grants the
permission.
The Education Officer had in the proceedings dated
31.05.2013 recorded that there are 2 post of Junior Clerk
vacant in the two Schools run by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4,
where the Appellant could be appointed.
This fact has not been either adverted to, or considered
by the High Court, in the impugned judgment.  
7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow
the Appeal, and set aside the  Judgment passed by the High
Court on 19.11.2014 in W.P. No. 3520 of 2014.
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to submit the proposal
for appointment of the Appellant before the Respondent No. 2 –
7
the   Education  Officer  within  one  month,  so  that  necessary
orders can be passed on the application of the appellant. 
Ordered accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
…..……...........................J.
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
..….……..........................J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi
August 26, 2019.
8