1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5018 of 2009 Waje Santosh Anant ..... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.C.R.Sadasivan, for the petitioner. Mr.V.P.Malvankar, A’ Panel Govt. Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Harshad Bhadbhade, for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 25th June, 2010 P.C. 1. The father of the petitioner was serving with the respondent No.3 College and he died at the time when he was in the employment as back on 17­04­1984. The petitioner was about six years of age at the relevant time. The petitioner after attaining majority after 12 years of the death of his father, requested the respondent College to give him compassionate appointment. The proposal for the said appointment was not rightly accepted by the State Government on the ground that the proposal should be made within one year from the date when the person attains majority. The respondent College for the reasons best known to it, however, appointed the petitioner on the ground of sympathy. 2 2. According to the petitioner, his appointment should have been treated as appointment on compassionate ground and he should be paid regular salary. It is the grievance of the petitioner that if the respondent College had sent the proposal immediately, perhaps his appointment would have been approved by the Government on the compassionate ground. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent College states that the petitioner was given appointment only out of sympathy and proposal of the College for appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds has not been accepted by the State Government. In our view, this petition is thoroughly misconceived because it is not expected that such compassionate appointment can be given at any point of time after years and it is not open for an applicant to wait indefinitely after the death of the breadwinner. The family of the petitioner sustained itself for 12 years. The object of the compassionate appointment is to see that when the sole breadwinner dies, the family may not be put to financial crisis on such death. In order to overcome such crisis, a policy is framed for giving compassionate appointment. If a policy is framed to give employment even after the death of employee at any time, such policy would be clearly hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as such advance booking cannot be made after years to come in favour of the incumbent. Even if 3 sthe State has framed any policy, the same can be said to be discriminatory and contrary to the Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as compassionate appointment is said to be an appointment which can only be given to the legal heir of an employee who died during the employment period. Surely, it cannot be said that even after years a person even if a minor at the time of the death of the person, cannot be given appointment after a long lapse of time. It was also enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Eastern Coalfields V/s. Anil Badyakar & Ors., decided on 15­05­2009, that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right of the applicant which can be exercised at any time. It cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and the crisis is over. 4. It is true that the respondent College has obliged the petitioner by giving appointment on sympathy, but the learned counsel for the respondent College submitted that the College is not going to ask any grant from the Government so far as the salary of the petitioner is concerned and the State Exchequer may not be burdened in this aspect. He further states that the respondent College would not take any steps terminating the services of the petitioner on the said ground. The said statement is accepted. We however, make it clear that so far as the salary of the petitioner is concerned, the State Government is directed not to release any grant in this behalf and it would be the responsibility of the 4 Management to pay salary to the petitioner on its own. We accordingly do not find any substance in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )