1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4157 OF 2007 Shri Santosh Vasantrao Kamble, ] aged about 32 years, Residing ] at and post Chikhali, Taluka - ] Karad, District – Satara. ] ..PETITIONER. -Versus- 1. The Zilla Parishad Satara, through ] its Chief Executive Officer, Satara, ] District – Satara. ] 2. The State of Maharashtra, through ] the Secretary, Rural Development ] Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ] 400 032. ]..RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.V.V. Pai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.V.P. Malvankar, A.G.P., for the State. ... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 9TH JUNE, 2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 30th JUNE, 2009. JUDGMENT [PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] :- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents – State. 2 2. On 9.10.1996 the petitioner came to be appointed by respondent No.1 – Zilla Parishad, Satara as a Farm Sevak on Class-IV post on compassionate ground and he was posted at Pratapsinh High School, Satara. Show-cause notice came to be issued against the petitioner from the Office of the Commissioner of Pune dated 10.8.2004 wherein it was stated that the petitioner has availed the benefit of employment with the Zilla Parishad by mis-using Clause 7(b) of the G.R. Dated 26.10.1994 by misleading the authorities and by not bringing to the notice of the authorities that his mother was employed as a Teacher with the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner replied to the said notice. Thereafter, enquiry came to be conducted and ultimately he came to be removed from service. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 22.3.2007, whereby he came to be removed from service of respondent No.1 – Zilla Parishad, Satara. 3. The petitioner’s father was in employment of respondent No.1 Zilla Parishad, Satara as Primary Teacher. His mother Smt.Nirmala Vasant Kamble was also in employment with respondent No.1 – Zilla Parishad as Assistant Teacher. The father of the petitioner died on 15.7.1994 due to illness. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application on 4.8.1994 to respondent No.1 for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. The case of the petitioner is that though his mother was also in employment with Zilla Parishad as Assistant Teacher, she was separated from the family and she had severed all relations with the family in the year, 1990 itself. According to the petitioner, even after the death of his father, his mother had not come forward to look after them and maintain him and his younger brother. Thus, 3 according to the petitioner as his mother was not rendering any support to him and his sibling in view of Clause 7(b) of G.R. Dated 26.10.1994 he was entitled to compassionate appointment. Clause 7(b) of the G.R. States that . at the time of application for appointment on compassionate ground is received, if the relative who was in service was not rendering any support to the dependent of the deceased then the person would be entitled to compassionate appointment. According to the petitioner, as his mother had left the house since the year, 1990 and she was residing separately and she was not looking after the petitioner and his brother in any manner financially or otherwise, the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment. 5. It may be stated here that after the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, PIL No.3 of 2004 came to be filed in this Court in respect of irregularities in the appointment made on compassionate ground at Zilla Parishad, Satara. The High Court had passed an interim order on 21.4.2003 in the said Writ Petition and directed the Divisional Commissioner, Pune or any other officer nominated by him not below the rank of the Assistant Commissioner to look into the matter and also directed that if there is any illegality or non-compliance of guidelines, he will take appropriate action and such action will be taken within three months. 6. As per the directions of the High Court, the Commissioner, Pune Division appointed a Deputy Commissioner (Establishment) for a detailed enquiry and report in this matter. At the time of enquiry, some of the appointments of the employees made on the compassionate ground were found irregular. Notice 4 came to be served on them and their explanations were called for. In the said case, it was found that there was violation of rule with regard to appointment of 12 persons on compassionate ground out of 211 appointments made by the respondent – Zilla Parishad on compassionate ground. The petitioner is one of the 12 persons. As stated earlier, after following due procedure, the petitioner came to be removed from service. 7. In support of the contention that his mother was residing separately since 1990 and she had cut-off relations from the petitioner, the petitioner has placed reliance on the income certificate and the ration-card of his mother. 8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had preferred an application for compassionate appointment on 4.8.1994. The income certificate of his mother which he has placed reliance on was issued on 10.10.1996 and the separate ration card of his mother which he has relied upon was of 3.2.1995. Both these documents on which reliance was placed by the petitioner during the enquiry as well as before us are documents generated after the application had been preferred by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. These two documents on which reliance was placed by the petitioner do not prove that the mother of the petitioner was separated from the family in the year, 1990 as claimed by him or even on the date that he preferred the application for appointment on compassionate ground. In fact, it is clear that the petitioner has obtained these documents after preferring the application to show separation from his mother from the family for getting appointment on compassionate ground. 5 9. It is also pertinent to note that when the petitioner made an application on compassionate ground on 4.8.1994, part-I of the application filled in by him clearly shows that his mother Smt.Nirmala Vasant Kamble is a family member. In column 4 of the said application information regarding the dependents of the deceased who was in service of Zilla Parishad was to be furnished. In the said Column which has been filled-in by the petitioner he has given name of three dependents. First one being his mother, second name is that of the petitioner and the third name is that of his brother. Thus, in the application preferred by the petitioner he has mentioned the name of his mother as a family member and as a dependent of his deceased father. Looking to all the facts stated above, the contention of the petitioner that his mother has been staying separately since 1990 and she has not supported him in any manner, is clearly false. 10. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis. The object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Mere death of any employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to eligible member of the family. Thus the only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased’s family. It is clear that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family 6 to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner. However, from the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the father of the petitioner was the sole breadwinner. The documents show that at the time of death of father, the mother was in employment. We have already observed that the contention that the mother was staying separately and did not support the family cannot be believed. In any event, the consideration for such employment is not a vested right. 11. Looking to the above facts the order dated 23.3.2007 does not call for any interference. Writ Petition is rejected. No order as to costs. [BILAL NAZKI,J] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]