Bombay High Court Protects Abhay Khond Compassionate Appointment, Rejects Group B Classification Based Solely On Salary, Sets Aside Tribunal Decision Against Long Serving Employees
Bombay High Court Rules Pay Scale Alone Cannot Determine Government Post Classification, Saves Compassionate Appointments Of Abhay Khond And Avinash Wagh After Decades Of Service
Facts
Abhay Chandrakant Khond and Avinash Kondiram Wagh challenged a common Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order of 30 October 2014 refusing relief against proposed cancellation of their compassionate appointments. Khond’s father served as a Training Officer drawing ₹6,500–10,500 and died on 7 March 2003. Khond was appointed Junior Clerk-cum-Typist on 31 January 2008, completed probation and was confirmed. Wagh’s father, a Group-C junior clerk, died in December 2001; Wagh was appointed Group Instructor in December 2004. The vocational education authorities issued show-cause notices in 2010, treating the fathers’ posts as Group-B, non-gazetted solely by pay scale and declaring their dependants ineligible under the then prevailing scheme. The Tribunal dismissed their applications; the High Court’s interim protection enabled uninterrupted service.
Issues
Whether the salary band ₹6,500–10,500, by itself, placed the deceased employees’ posts in Group B despite departmental Government Resolutions specifying Group-C posts; whether Khond’s father was in fact Class III; and whether long-confirmed compassionate appointments could be cancelled years later without fraud, misconduct or a legally sustainable basis.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Khond argued that his father’s Training Officer role belonged to Class III and was a feeder post for promotion to Group B, not a Group-B position itself. Wagh relied on four Government Resolutions dated 22 October 2008, 31 March 2010, 14 May 2010 and 31 August 2010, which designated Group Instructor as Group-C (Technical) notwithstanding its ₹6,500–10,500 salary scale. Both submitted that competent authorities had duly appointed them, they completed probation, and they had served without blemish. They said the State could not selectively rely on the 2 July 2002 Resolution and a 19 May 2010 confidential letter while disregarding operative post classifications. They also cited the expanded compassionate-appointment policy of 27 September 2021.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State maintained that, when the appointments were made, compassionate employment was available only to dependants of Group-C and Group-D employees. It asserted that the deceased employees’ posts had been wrongly classified and that the specified pay scale indicated Group-B, non-gazetted status. Relying on the Government Resolution of 2 July 2002, the Directorate’s confidential letter dated 19 May 2010, and its 2016 affidavits, the State contended that the proposed cancellation was lawful and that the Tribunal had correctly refused relief.
Analysis of the Law
The judgment turns on a specific cadre-classification inquiry under Maharashtra Government Resolutions, rather than treating pay scale as a conclusive indicator of group status. The 2008 and 2010 Resolutions repeatedly identified Group Instructor as Group C, and the State did not show their withdrawal or supersession. In Khond’s case, the State admitted that his father occupied a Class-III post and failed to substantiate a Group-B classification. Compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary public recruitment designed to address financial hardship after an employee’s death. Once probation is completed and service confirmed, continued employment remains protected subject to applicable service rules. The later 2021 policy extending eligibility to Groups A and B was noted but not retrospectively applied.
Precedent Analysis
The Division Bench applied Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12 SCC 342, in which the Supreme Court disapproved termination of a compassionate appointee after 15 years when the State belatedly alleged a policy error and the employee had committed no fraud or suppression. The principle prevents a public employer from shifting the consequences of its own prolonged administrative lapse onto a blameless employee. The High Court nevertheless stressed that its decision turned on this record, including the specific Government Resolutions, the employees’ classification and their uninterrupted service, and expressly stated that the order should not be treated as a precedent for other matters.
Court’s Reasoning
Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam A. Ankhad held that the State and Tribunal had overlooked material Government Resolutions in assuming Group-B status merely from ₹6,500–10,500 pay. The authorities had already acknowledged Khond’s father as a Class-III employee, and Khond’s own appointment was to a Group-C Junior Clerk-cum-Typist post. Wagh’s appointed Group Instructor post was consistently placed in Group-C (Technical). Both employees were appointed by competent officers, completed probation and remained in service for roughly two decades; no false declaration, fraud or misconduct was alleged. To cancel their employment after such prolonged service, when they had passed usual recruitment age limits, would inflict grave and disproportionate hardship. The Court found the proposed cancellation unlawful.
Conclusion
Both writ petitions were allowed. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment insofar as it dismissed Original Application Nos. 1030/2010 and 1220/2010, and granted the petitioners relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d), protecting their compassionate appointments from the impugned cancellation action. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. The decision combines close scrutiny of operative cadre classifications with fairness toward long-serving, confirmed employees; the Bench specifically limited its order to the peculiar facts and circumstances and disclaimed precedential application to other matters.
Case: Abhay Chandrakant Khond and Avinash Kondiram Wagh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: W.P. No. 10796/2014 (Abhay Khond) with W.P. No. 10795/2014 (Avinash Wagh); 2026:BHC-AS:44316-DB
Judge: Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam A. Ankhad (author)
Date: 30 October 2026 (reserved 12 October 2026)
Result: Both petitions allowed; adverse Tribunal findings set aside; compassionate appointments protected; no costs; expressly fact-specific ruling.
