Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLALTE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.409-410 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 20840-41/2014)

Vijaya Ukarda Athor (Athawale)                    ..Appellant   

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors.              ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Delay condoned.  Leave granted.

2. These appeals  arise  out  of  the impugned Order  dated  

18.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay Bench at Nagpur,  

in W.P. No.1341 of 2013 and Order dated 22.11.2013 passed in the  

Review  Application  No.511  of  2013  in  Writ  Petition  No.1341  of  

2013, whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and also  

the  Review  Application  thereby  declining  to  issue  direction  to

Page 2

2

consider the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment.  

3. The  issue  relates  to  the  compassionate  appointment  

between the rival  claimants.   Late Ukarda Athor  (Athwale),  who  

was working as a clerk in Municipal Corporation, Amravati, had two  

wives namely Shantabai Ukarda Athor and Kuntabai Ukarda Athor.  

He  died  on  18.06.1997.   The  appellant-Vijaya  Ukarda  Athor  

(Athawale), is daughter of Late Ukarda Pundlikrao Athor (Athawale)  

through the first  wife,  3rd respondent is  the son of  Late Ukarda  

Athor  through  the  second  wife.   Smt.  Shantabai  Ukarda  Athor,  

mother of the appellant, filed a Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 2001 in  

the Court  of  Civil  Judge (Junior  Division),  Anjanagaon-Surji,  Dist.  

Amravati,  seeking  for  a  declaration  being  the  legal  heirs  of  

deceased  Ukarda  Athor,  they  have  the  right  in  the  property,  

pension and funds of deceased Ukarda Athor and the said suit was  

decreed by the judgement dated 15.01.2005.  In  the Succession  

Case No.6/1998 Dated 24.09.2007 filed under Section 372 of the  

Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Civil Judge (J.D.), Distt. Amravati,  

interalia,  ordered  that  the  mother  of  the  appellant  would  be  

entitled for  the benefit  of  the pension of  the deceased.   In  the  

succession case, it was further ordered that the appellant and her  

mother would be entitled to 1/4th share each of total amount of GPF

Page 3

3

and other funds of Ukarda Athor.  On 25.5.2009, respondent No.3  

moved an  application  seeking  compassionate  appointment.   On  

19.4.2012,  the  appellant  filed  an  objection  application,  raising  

objection for consideration of job application filed by respondent  

No.3  and  requesting  the  authorities  not  to  give  him  the  

compassionate appointment.  The Municipal Corporation vide order  

dated  18.09.2012  appointed  respondent  No.3-  Sagar  Ukarda  

thereby declaring the appellant  ineligible  for  the compassionate  

appointment as she has already got married.   

4. Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  non-grant  of  appointment,  

appellant herein filed a Writ Petition No.1341 of 2013 before the  

High  Court  of  Bombay.   Vide  order  dated 18.03.2013,  the  High  

Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition holding that on the date  

of appointment,   the appellant was a married daughter and the  

policy decision was taken by the State Government on 26.2.2013  

for grant of compassionate appointment to married daughter and  

before  the  said  date  the  appellant  was  not  eligible  for  any  

appointment.  The appellant filed a review application before the  

High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2013.  

In these appeals, the appellant assails the above orders.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the

Page 4

4

time of death of her father Mr. Ukarda Athor (dated 18.06.1997)  

the appellant  who was then a minor,   submitted an application  

seeking  appointment  on  29.12.1997  and  again  after  attaining  

majority, the appellant sought compassionate appointment for the  

post  of  clerk  vide  her  application  dated  19.03.1998,  filed  in  a  

prescribed proforma.  However, for a long time, no appointments  

took place in the respondent-Corporation.   It was also submitted  

that appellant got married in 2009, but still she would take care of  

the needs of her widowed mother and there is no bar for giving  

compassionate appointment to a married daughter and rejecting  

the  claim  of  a  married  daughter  who  is  otherwise  suitable  for  

seeking  compassionate  employment  defies  any  logic.   It  was  

submitted  that  the  High  Court  did  not  keep  in  view  that  the  

appointment has been sought on compassionate grounds for the  

post of clerk ever since the death of appellant’s father as per the  

well settled proposition laid down by the Supreme Court.  It was  

contended  that  the  compassionate  appointment  given  to  

respondent  No.3,  who  is  an  illegitimate  son  of  the  deceased-

employee is not sustainable.   

6. The  learned  counsel  for  the  second  respondent-

Corporation  submitted  that  the  appointment  on  compassionate

Page 5

5

ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right but can be claimed  

only in terms of the Rules or Regulations framed in this regard.  

Placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of  

Shreejith L. vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Ors., (2012)   

7  SCC  248  and  The  Chief  Commissioner,  Central  Excise  and   

Customs, Lucknow & Ors. vs. Prabhat Singh, 2013 (1) SCALE 506, it  

was  submitted  that  where  the  norms  have  been  laid  down  for  

making compassionate appointments, the same have to be strictly  

followed.   

7. The  learned  counsel  further  submitted  that  when  the  

application for compassionate appointment was considered as per  

Government  Resolution  dated  26.10.1994,  only  unmarried  

daughter  was  eligible  to  be  considered  for  compassionate  

appointment.  Learned counsel  urged that the State Government  

has taken a Policy Decision only on 26.02.2013,  as per which the  

married daughters would also be eligible for consideration for the  

grant of compassionate appointment subject to the fulfilment of  

certain conditions.   The learned counsel further contended that  

before  26.02.2013  since  the  appellant  was  not  eligible  to  be  

considered for compassionate appointment, the High Court rightly  

dismissed the writ petition and the impugned orders do not suffer

Page 6

6

from any infirmity warranting interference.   

8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted  

that  even  though  respondent  No.3  is  the  son  of  a  deceased  

employee out of second wedlock and illegitimate child, yet there is  

no denying the fact that he remains the son of deceased-Ukarda  

Athor and therefore, the respondent No.3 was entitled to the same  

treatment  as  is  available  to  the child  of  first  marriage.   It  was  

submitted  that  as  the  illegitimate  son  of  the  deceased  the  3rd  

respondent  is  entitled  to  get  appointment  on  compassionate  

ground subject to the fulfilment of certain criteria as laid down by  

the authorities and in consideration of the status of the respondent  

No.3  and  the  Policy  Decision  of  the  State  Government,  rightly  

respondent No.3 was given the appointment and the High Court  

rightly dismissed the writ petition and also the review application  

and the impugned orders warrant no interference.  

9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and  

perused the impugned order and other materials on record.

10. The fact that the appellant is the daughter through the  

first wife-Shantabai Athor and respondent No.3 is the son through  

the second wife-Kuntabai  Athor  of  Late Ukarda Athor  are not  in  

dispute.   Ukarda  Athor  died  on  18.06.1997.  According  to  the

Page 7

7

appellant, her mother submitted an application dated 29.12.1997  

stating  that  her  daughter  Vijaya  Athor-appellant  who  is  aged  

seventeen  years  and  then  a  minor  studying  in  10th standard,  

should  be  given  compassionate  appointment  when  she  attains  

majority.   According to the appellant after she attained majority  

she  has  submitted  another  application  on  19.03.1998,  seeking  

compassionate  appointment;  but  for  quite  sometime,  the  same  

was not considered by the authorities.  The appellant was married  

in  the  year  2009.  The  contention  of  the  appellant  is  that  her  

application for compassionate appointment was kept pending by  

the authorities without any justifiable reason.  But according to the  

respondent  No.2-Corporation,  giving  employment  in  government  

service  on  compassionate  ground  was  then  governed  by  

“Government Resolution, General Administration Department, No.  

Comp.1093/2335/M.No.90/93/Eight,  dated 26 October,  1994”.  As  

per  the  said  Resolution  only  the  unmarried  daughter  of  the  

deceased  would  be  eligible  for  the  appointment  as  per  Rules.  

Reliance is placed on clause (3)(a) of Government Resolution which  

reads as under:

“(3) (a).  Husband/wife, son or unmarried daughter of the  deceased/  prematurely  retired government employee OR  son/unmarried  daughter  lawfully  adopted,  before  death/premature  retirement,  shall  be  deemed to  be  the  relatives  eligible  to  be  appointed  as  per  rules.   Except

Page 8

8

them,  no  other  relative  shall  get  the  benefit  under  this  scheme.”   

The  State  Government  has  taken  a  Policy  Decision  on  

26.02.2013 and held that the married daughters are also entitled  

for compassionate appointment subject to certain conditions.  

11. In our considered view, the questions viz.: (i) the effect  

of  “Government  Resolution,  General  Administration  Department,  

No.  Comp.  1093/2335/M.  No.90/93/Eight,  dated  26.10.1994  and  

effect of Clause (3)(a); (ii) the plea that the appellant submitted  

application on 29.12.1997 and 19.03.1998, that the same was not  

considered by the authorities for quite sometime;  (iii) at  the  time  

when  the  applications  for  compassionate  appointment  was  

considered  in  2012  whether  3rd respondent  was  eligible  to  be  

considered;  (iv)  the  effect  of  subsequent  policy  decision  dated  

26.02.2013  taken  by  the  State  Government  as  per  which  the  

married  daughter  is  also  eligible  to  get  compassionate  

appointment; and (v)  such other relevant  questions which are to  

be  examined.   In  our  considered  view,  instead  of  this  Court  

examining the above questions, the matter is to be remitted back  

to the High Court for considering the above questions in the light  

of the facts and circumstances of the case.  

12. In the result, the impugned Orders of the High Court in

Page 9

9

Writ  Petition  No.1341  of  2013  dated  18.03.2013  and  Review  

Application No. 511 of 2013 dated 22.11.2013 are set aside and  

the appeals are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the  

High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The High Court  

shall  give  sufficient  opportunity  to  the  appellant  and  the  

respondents and consider the matter afresh expeditiously and in  

accordance with law.

………………………..J. (V. Gopala Gowda)  

………………………..J. (R. Banumathi)   

New Delhi;  January 14, 2015

Page 10

10

ITEM NO.1B-For Judgment    COURT NO.11               SECTION IX

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  20840- 20841/2014

(Arising  out  of  impugned  final  judgment  and  order  dated  18/03/2013  in  WP  No.  1341/2013,22/11/2013  in  MA  No.  511/2013,22/11/2013 in WP No. 1341/2013 passed by the High Court  Of Bombay At Nagpur)

VIJAYA UKARDA ATHOR(ATHAWALE)                      Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS                    Respondent(s)

Date  :  14/01/2015  These  petitions  were  called  on  for  pronouncement of JUDGMENT today.

For Petitioner(s)  Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak,Adv.                      Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv.

For Respondent(s)  Mr. Shankar Chillarge, Adv.                      Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.

Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv.                      For M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.                 

Hon'ble  Mrs.  Justice  R.  Banumathi  pronounced  the  

judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.  

Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.

     (VINOD KR. JHA)      (RENU DIWAN)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)