1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1937 OF 2008 Smt. Ranjana w/o. Narayan Bhure, Age 22 yrs., Occu. Nil., R/o. Gojegaon, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 3. The Education Officer Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Dist.Nanded. 4. The Secretary/President, Anusaya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Gojegaon, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. 5. The Head Master, Late. Anusayabai Patil Secondary School, Gojegaon, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents. Mr. P. G. Rodge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent- State. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. A.V. Patil h/f. Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent No. 4 & 5. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 27th October, 2010. ORDER : [ PER A. A. SAYED, J.] 1. By way of present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate grounds in the 2 secondary school known as Anusaya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Gojegaon, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded ( 'the said school' for short ) run by the respondent No. 4 - Society. 2. The petitioner is widow of one Narayan Bhure, who was working with the said school. Unfortunately Narayan passed away on 1.10.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that she has studied upto 9th Standard and is eligible and entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds as a peon in place of her husband in the said school, run by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner contends that due to the sudden death of her husband who was the only bread earner of her family, she is undergoing lot of hardship and she has no source of income. She, therefore, submitted an application dated 17.11.2007 to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as also respondent No. 3 - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded to appoint her as a peon in place of her husband on compassionate grounds in the said school as per the policy of the State Government set out in Government Resolution dated 26th October 2010 and guidelines issued by the State Government in respect of compassionate appointments. As she did not receive any response, she has filed this petition. 3. A reply dated 16.8.2008 has been filed by respondent No. 5 - Head Master of the said school opposing the petition, wherein it is stated that the petitioner's husband was infact working with said school with effect 3 from 26.6.1998 and not from 1995. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to rely upon the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994 as the deceased husband of the petitioner was not a Government employee. It is further averred in the said reply that the younger brother of deceased Narayan, who possesses qualification of H.S.C., has applied to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, seeking appointment on the post of deceased Narayan on compassionate basis, which was under consideration of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that the decision on the application of younger brother of Narayan has not yet been taken. 4. It is denied in the reply that the representation of the petitioner, which is annexed to the petition, was received by them. Curiously, it has been stated in the reply that no hardship is being suffered by the petitioner on account of death of her husband Narayan and that since petitioner was not having any issue from the deceased Narayan and she is living with her parents, no such hardship is being caused to her. It is further averred that the deceased Narayan's mother and brother are facing real hardship after the death of the father of Narayan, who also expired immediately after the death of Narayan and that there is nobody to lookafter the mother and brother of the deceased Narayan and that the said brother is unemployed and unmarried and that in the interest of justice the claim of the younger brother of the deceased Narayan is required to be considered, as he can also take care of the petitioner, she being his sister in law. Noteably, the fact that the petitioner has no 4 source of income has not been denied. 5. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the facts stated in the petition and pointing out that the School is receiving 100% grant from the State of Maharashtra and as per the Government Resolution dated 26th of October 1994 she has preferential right over the other relatives of deceased Narayan. 6. We must, at the outset, observe that we do not appreciate the tenor of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is significant to note that the petitioner is young widow of 22 years of age and the averments in the reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that no hardship would be caused to her, needs to be rejected at the very threshold. It is obvious from the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that they are interested in appointing the deceased Narayan's brother to the post of peon in the said school on compassionate grounds, instead of appointing petitioner. In the face of the policy of the Government as set out in the Government Resolution dated 26th of October 1994, wherein a preferential right has been clearly given to the widow over the other heirs of the deceased for appointment on compassionate grounds, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be heard to say that the deceased Narayan's brother was more deserving than the petitioner. On the one hand, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 claim that the said school being a private institution, the petitioner is not entitled 5 to place reliance on the Government Resolution dated 26th October 1994, and on the other hand it is suggested that the brother of the deceased Narayan is entitled and more deserving to be appointed on compassionate ground as per the very policy. It is not disputed that the said school is receiving 100% grant from the Government. Pertinently inspite of directions by this Court, neither the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Zilla Parishad nor the respondent No. 1 State have filed a reply opposing the petition. We find that the policy of the State Government as set out in the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1998 and the guidelines framed by the Government in respect of compassionate appointments, would be applicable to the case of the petitioner. The inaction of the respondents in appointing the petitioner to the post of peon in the said school on compassionate grounds, was clearly unjustifiable. Because of the delay and inaction on part of this respondents, the very objective of the Scheme of compassionate appointments which is to get over the sudden crises in the family left in penury, because of the death of a bread winner who died in harness, is sought to be defeated. We are, therefore, in the special facts and circumstances of this case and considering the inordinate delay and inaction on part of the respondents, inclined to allow the petition. 7. For the reasons aforestated the petition succeeds. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of peon and issue appropriate appointment order in that behalf and send the 6 proposal for approval to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to grant approval to such appointment immediately on receipt of the proposal from respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner would be entitled to receive salary and allowances for the post of peon as per the rules applicable. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp1937.08