Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, allowed an appeal against the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The Court was hearing an appeal on the validity of appointment of heirs, on the basis on compassionate grounds, 'on superannuation' of the employees. The Bench stated,

“As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment”.

The pertinent matter was regarding compassionate appointment to heirs of the employees. The dispute dates back to the year 2003, when the Ahmednagar Municipal Council was converted to Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika. Following an industrial dispute, the Industrial Court directed that in the category of Class-IV employees, "if they die before their retirement; if they become invalid, or if they retire, their heirs should be given appointment in their place".

Subsequently, Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika gave a notice of change in respect of demand of employment. Pursuant to which, the Industrial Court modified the earlier award with conditions that: it pertained to only employees working in health department only; and that the compassionate appointment not to be provided on their superannuation/retirement, but only to the heirs of the deceased Class-IV employees. 

Later on complaints, the Industrial Court directed to provide employment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. This was challenged before the High Court through a writ, which was subsequently dismissed. 

Advocate Suhas Kadam, on behalf of the appellant submitted that, after the conversion the employees of the Mahanagar Palika/Municipal Corporation are entitled to the benefit of the scheme at par with the government employees. It was further contended that such appointments are subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters such as financial position of the deceased employee's family, economic dependence of the family etc. While Advocate Iyer Shruti Gopal for the respondent submitted that the appointment under dispute was not even on compassionate grounds but instead is called varas hakka (inheritance, birthright).

The Court after hearing the arguments put forth, first denied to accept the argument that the appointment was not on compassionate grounds, but varas hakka. As the concept being violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 

It further held that, post the conversion, the employees of the Mahanagar Palika/Municipal Corporation should be governed by the scheme of the State Government at par with the government employees. And that it did not provide for any such provision. Therefore, "the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India".

 

CASE TITLE: Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union