IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7489 OF 2023

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.3309 of 2023)

GOVINDA JANARDAN GAIKWAD ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

The appellant applied for compassionate appointment

within a period of two years from the date on which he

attained majority. The application made by the appellant

was not considered by the respondent Nos. 3 and 5.

Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court by way

of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

There are four grounds recorded by the High Court

in the paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment for rejecting

the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The said four

grounds are as follows:

"i) It is 15 years past the demise of the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
father;
Date: 2023.11.09
16:23:20 IST
Reason: ii) For 15 years, the family has survived;

1
 iii) The sister of the petitioner has also got
married; and
iv) The petitioner has also got married and is
working as a labourer."
The fact that the appellant's sister has got

married has obviously nothing to do with the grant of

compassionate appointment to the appellant. Secondly,

the appellant is not having regular employment and is

working as a labourer. Thirdly, the appellant could

apply only after he attained the age of majority.

It is very unfortunate that the concerned

respondents raised a contention before the High Court

that as the family of the appellant has survived for 15

years after the death of the appellant's father, he is

not entitled to compassionate appointment. In our view,

considering the concept of welfare State, the respondent

Nos. 3 and 5 ought not to have raised such a contention,

especially when the appellant is making both ends meet by

working as a labourer. Thus, none of the four grounds

mentioned above are available to the respondent Nos. 3

and 5.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent

Nos.3 and 5 submitted that initially the appellant's

mother applied for compassionate appointment and

thereafter, the appellant applied for substitution. On

this point, in the paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment,

the High Court has decided against the State Government.

2
 It is not pointed out that the appellant was

required to apply within a specified time from the date

on which he attained majority. In the facts of the case,

the appellant applied within a reasonable time from the

date of attaining majority.

Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and order

and direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to consider the

case of the appellant for grant of compassionate

appointment in the light of what we have held in this

judgment.

Necessary action shall be taken by the respondent-

State within a period of three months from today.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

..........................J.
(ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)

NEW DELHI;
November 06, 2023.

3
ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.9 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). 3309/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2022

in WP No. 9982/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)

GOVINDA JANARDAN GAIKWAD Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 32129/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT
IA No. 32131/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 06-11-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

For Petitioner(s)
Ms. Sneha Botwe, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
Mr. Abhinay Khot,Adv.
Mr. Anand Deshpande,Adv.
Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, AOR

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.

Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR

Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv.
Ms. Harsimran Kaur Rai, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Sharma, Adv.

4
 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(ANITA MALHOTRA) (AVGV RAMU)

AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)