Cancellation of Compassionate Appointments On Reclassification of posts held by deceased employees
Judgment dated 30.10.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.10795 of 2014 of ShriAvinash Kondiram Wagh Vs. The Incharge Deputy Director, Vocational Education & Training and others with connected Writ Petition No.10796 of 2014
The Petitioner’s father, Shri Kondiram Wagh, was employed by the State Government as a junior clerk in a Group-C post. He died in service on 24th December, 2001. By order dated 1st December, 2004, Respondent No.1 appointed the Petitioner on compassionate grounds as a Group Instructor in the pay-scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-. The Petitioner joined service, completed his probation and since then has been in continuous employment with the Respondents. 4. On 21st August, 2010, Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice alleging that the Petitioner’s appointment was not in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 2nd July 2002. The notice proceeded on the basis that a post carrying the pay Page 3 of 14 scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500/- was classified as a Group-B, non gazetted post, and called upon the Petitioner to show cause why his appointment should not be cancelled. The Petitioner challenged the notice before the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 1030 of 2010. The Petitioner relied, inter alia, on Government Resolutions dated 22nd October 2008, 31st March 2010, 14th May 2010 and 31st August 2010, which, according to him, classified the post of Group Instructor in that pay-scale as Group-C (Technical). The Tribunal granted interim protection but finally dismissed the Original Application. By order dated 1st December 2014, this Court continued the interim protection granted to the Petitioner, who has remained in service during the pendency of this Petition.
Respondents were justified in treating the posts held by the Petitioners’ deceased fathers as Group-B posts, solely on the basis of the pay-scale attached to them, and consequently initiating action to cancel the compassionate appointment of the Petitioners.
After following the due process, the Petitioners were appointed by the competent departmental authorities in 2004 and 2008, respectively. Both the Petitioners completed probation and continued in service for several years before the impugned show cause notices were issued in 2010. The notices rest on the premise that the pay-scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500/- placed the posts held by their fathers in Group B. In our view, the Government Resolution dated 2nd July 2002 and the confidential letter dated 19th May 2010, on which the Respondents rely, cannot be read in isolation from the subsequent Government Resolutions, which specifically addresses the post of Group Instructor and the staffing pattern of the Department.
read together, the aforesaid Government Resolutions identify the post of Group Instructor as a Group-C post. We may note that the Respondents have not shown that any of these Government Resolutions are withdrawn, superseded or set aside. The departmental letter dated 19th May 2010 does not address or reconcile these specific classifications. No explanation is forthcoming from the learned AGP as to why the aforesaid Government Resolutions were not considered by the Respondents. We also find that the Tribunal has not considered the aforesaid four Government Resolutions, which has a material bearing on this case. Hence in our view, the action proposed against Shri Avinash Wagh, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10795 of 2014, to set aside the compassionate appointment on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 2nd July, 2002 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
on the principle of equity and fairness against the drastic action of unsettling their employment after such a long period of service. There was no laches or delay on the part of the Petitioners in seeking compassionate appointment. The Petitioners have served continuously for approximately two decades. No fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct on their part has been alleged. The Petitioners have also now crossed the usual age limits for entry into Government employment. As such, termination of their service at this stage would expose them and their family members, to grave and disproportionate hardship.
