LexMUMTAZ YUNUS MULANI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 241
-I
MUMTAZ YUNUS MULANI
A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2002 of 2008)
MARCH 14, 2008
B
"1
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
Service Law:
Appointment on compassionate ground ..:.. Husband of c
applicant died while in service of a charitable and aided
educational institution - Applicant receiving retrial benefits of
her husband and family pension - Meanwhile another person
appointed in place of deceased - Appointment declined to
applicant inview of Scheme - HELD: Right to get appointment
on compassionate ground would depend upon the Scheme D
operating in the field - On facts, High Court has recorded a
-·
finding that in view of the Scheme operative at relevant point
of time applicant did not fulfill the criteria - No case made out
to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 -
E
Government of Maharashtra Order dated 31.12.2002.
The husband of the appellant died on 6.9.1996 while
in service of the respondent, an aided educational
institution. Since the application of the appellant for
F
compassionate appointment was declined by the
institution, she filed a writ petition which was dismissed
by the High Court.
In the instant appeal filed by the wife of the deceased
employee, ~twas contended for the respondent-institution G
that the appellant had received the retrial benefits upon
death of her husband and she was also receiving the
family pension. It was further submitted that upon death
..,.... -!
of appellant's husband another person had been
241
H
242
SUPREME COURT l~EPORTS
(2008) 5 S.C.R.
A appoil")ted in his place and it was not possible to remove
him from the service to acc:ommodate the appellant.
Dismissing the appeal,, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Appointment on compassionate ground
B can only be granted to tide over the sudden crisis of the
family of the deceased. The~ right to get appointment on
compassionate ground would depend upon the scheme
operating in the field. It ma)I be true that in a given case,
appointment on compassionate ground cannot be denied
c only because the dependents of the deceased had been
receiving some amount lby way of family pension.
However, it is now a well settled principle of law that
appointment on compassionate ground is not a source
of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent
D scheme is to see that the dependents of the deceased
are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables
the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial
-,~-
crisis. [para 8-1 O] [245-F, 2461-A, B, C]
Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7
E SCC 265; Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1989 (4) SCC 468; State of J & K & Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed
Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138; National Institute of
Technology & Ors. v. Niraj Kumar Singh 2007 (2) SCALE 525;
F and I. G. (Karmik) & Ors. v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6
sec 162 - relied on.
General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary & Anr.
[{2004) 7 SCC 271; Govind Prakash Varma v. Life Insurance
Corporation of India & Ors. [(2005) 10 SCC 289 - referred to.
G
1.2 In the instant case, the respondent is a charitable
institution. It is run on Government aid. It cannot afford to
appoint persons in a post which has not been sanctioned.
It h~s not been denied or disputed that one person has
~~
H already been appointed in place of the deceased husband
MUMTAZ YUNUS MULANI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
243
& ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
-I
of the appellant. Besides, since appellant's husband died A
as far back as onr16.9.1996 and the vacancy was filled up
in the year 1997, appellant's case could not have been
considered on the basis of the policy decision contained
in the Government Order dated 31st December 2002. The
High Court also in its judgment noticed that the scheme B
-r
which was operative at the relevant point of time was that
appointment on compassionate ground should not be
given if the monthly income exceeds Rs.5,00/-. Evidently,
the appellant did not fulfill the said criteria. Furthermore,
about 12 years have passed.Appellant's son is aged about c
20 years and daughter is aged about 16 years. Therefore,
they have become major. Keeping in view the fact situation
obtaining in the case, no case has been made out for
exercising discretionary jurisdiction uExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.