The Bombay High Court has allowed the appointment of the brother of a married deceased as a “special case” as he has been taking care of the family of the deceased since 2013.
Appoint deceased brother as Jr clerk in school: Court
A division bench of Justices SK Shinde and Vrushali Joshi of the Nagpur bench of HC directed the education officer to approve the appointment of Vinod Budhbaware as a junior clerk in Shankaranand Vidhyalay.
The HC was hearing a petition filed by Mr Budhbaware, brother of Pundalik, challenging the decision of the education officer to grant approval for his appointment.
Mr Pundalik was working as an assistant teacher at Shankaranand Vidhyalay. During service, he passed away. He was survived by his mother, wife, minor son and younger brother Vinod, who were all dependent on him.
Education officer had refused approval for appointment
After his death, Mr Budhbaware applied for the job as a junior clerk on compassionate grounds. Mr Pundalik’s widow Vijaylaxmi endorsed the application. The school appointed Mr Budhbaware as a junior clerk on April 30, 2013. Later, the Headmistress of the school sought sanction from the Education Officer.
The Education Officer refused to grant the approval stating that the Compassionate Appointment Policy as per the Government Resolutions dated December 31, 2002, and September 21, 2017, “disentitles” Mr Budhbaware from seeking compassionate appointment since the deceased had left behind a widow and minor son.
Petitioner's demand neither unreasonable nor unjust: Court
The justices agreed that “the scheme of compassionate appointment of the Petitioner, being the brother of married deceased-employee, was neither unreasonable nor unjust and, therefore, the order impugned cannot be faulted with”. However, under the present circumstances, the brother cannot be denied an appointment since he has been taking care of the entire family since 2013, added the bench.
The court added that Mr Budhbaware was appointed by the school in 2013 and since he is looking after the family of the deceased since 2013, “it would not be appropriate to discontinue the Petitioner’s services in the above facts and circumstances”.
Moreover, Mr Budhbaware's advocate argued that he was qualified to be appointed as a junior clerk and he had assured to look after the family of the deceased and, in fact, had given an undertaking to that effect. Hence, the bench directed the Education Officer to grant the approval to the Petitioner’s appointment, as a special case.
