1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3153 of 2008. Shri Omprakash Vishwanath Banthe & another Vs. Mah. State Elec. Distribution Company Ltd & others' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri SK Tambde, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri RK Deshpande, Advocate for State Respondents. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 11th December, 2008. Heard Mr. Tambde, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is praying for directions for appointment on compassionate ground under Respondent no.1 and the MSEB was the parent body of the respondent no.1 Company. The father of the petitioner no.1 Shri Vishwanath Banthe was in the employment of the MSEB as a Line- helper and while in employment, he died on 5-12-1994 because of illness. The petitioner is born on 4-11-1972 and he had studied up to 12th standard. He submitted his 2 application for compassionate appointment on 21-6-1995, and the said application was rejected as per the communication dated 11-6-2003. It appears that on 10-8-2004, MSEB received an undated application from the petitioner no.1 threatening that he would commit suicide if he is not employed on compassionate ground. The MSEB vide its letter dated 12- 8-2004 called upon the petitioner to restrain from attempting to commit suicide while maintaining that his application was rejected on 11-6-2003, and the same was informed to him vide the letter dated 15-6-2004. By a subsequent letter dated 1-12-007, the respondent no.1 Company informed the petitioner that his case for appointment on compassionate ground was already closed, and it could not be reopened. An Advocate's notice was issued to the respondents on 24-2-2008, and finally this petition has been filed before us. Affidavit in reply has been filed by the Executive Engineer of the Respondent No.1 Company and the petition has been opposed. 3 There is no dispute that the petitioner no.1 has two elder brothers by name Wasudeo and Kishor and on the date of his father's demise, both these brothers were employed as Line helpers in Bhivapur Sub Division of the Respondent No.1 Company. As per the administrative circular No.305 dated 3-11-83, issued by the MSEB, the employment on compassionate ground was not available to the second member of the deceased employee's family, and this clause came to be deleted by the administrative circular no.182 dated 15-4-87 and subject to the following conditions namely: (a) If any dependant of the deceased in the employment of MSEB or in any other department, who is residing separately from his family, shows his inability to look after other dependants of the deceased employee and (b) The following documents are submitted in support of the application for compassionate appointment by the applicant i.e. (i) Ration Card, (ii) Residential address. 4 (iii) Certificate issued by the employer and (iv) Undertaking showing his inability to look after the family of the deceased employee and (v) Other relevant document. As per the Office note dated 24-2-2003 forwarded to the Head Office, it appears that the compliance of certain documents could not be made, and therefore, the case of the petitioner no.1 for employment on compassionate ground was rejected. Mr. Tambde, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to other office correspondence of the respondents, and submitted that subsequently the compliance had been made. However, since the two sons of the deceased employee having been employed with the MSEB and as of now under Respondent no.1, we do not find any reason to hold that there was compliance of circular No.182 dated 15-4-1987 or administrative Circular No.159 dated 8-11-1995. An appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the mandate of Article 14 of the 5 Constitution, and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a concession so as to help the dependants of the deceased employee to rehabilitate themselves and based on the scheme formulated by the employer. We therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this petition, and we are satisfied that the application of petitioner no.1 for appointment on compassion ground has been rightly turned down. Petition is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/