Case: YOGESH NAGRAOJI UGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. The background facts briefly stated are asfather 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 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 andNo. 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 re-scheduled 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 MS¬CIT. 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 directed that the proposal for approval be submitted to his office within oneresponse, 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 non¬teaching employees on compassionate ground, which was relaxed in respect of the wait-list candidates prior toGovernment of Maharashtra vide Resolution dated 22.03.2012 bearing No. PDN¬2012/Pra. Kra. 15/12 Financial Development-1, 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 tillGovernment of Maharashtra vide Resolution dated 01.03.2014 bearing No. AKP¬1014/Pra. Kra. 34/8 revised its 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% ofthe 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 compassionateHigh 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.Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment of the High Court, the Appellant has filed the present Special Leave Petition before this Court. This Court issued Notice to the Respondents vide Order dated 12.02.2015.

Court's reasoning:
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.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 toperusal 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 theEducation 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 befact has not been either adverted to, or considered by the High Court, in the impugned judgment.