Bombay High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Orders Against Compassionate Appointees, Holds Pay Scale Alone Cannot Determine Group Classification, Preserves Employment After Nearly Two Decades
Bombay High Court Preserves Jobs Of Compassionate Appointees After Two Decades, Rejects Pay Scale Based Group B Classification, Cites Unblemished Service And Fundamental Fairness Principles
Facts
The Bombay High Court heard connected petitions by Avinash Kondiram Wagh and Abhay Chandrakant Khond against the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s common order of 30 October 2014. Wagh’s father, a Group-C junior clerk, died in service in December 2001; Wagh was appointed a Group Instructor on compassionate grounds in December 2004. Khond’s father, a Training Officer, died in March 2003; Khond was appointed Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in January 2008. Both completed probation and served continuously. In 2010 the vocational education authorities issued show-cause notices proposing cancellation of their appointments, treating posts carrying the ₹6,500–10,500 pay scale as Group-B posts ineligible under the earlier compassionate-appointment policy. The Tribunal dismissed their applications, but the High Court protected their continued service pending the petitions.
Issues
Could Maharashtra classify the relevant posts as Group B solely by reference to their pay scale, despite specific Government Resolutions recording Group-C status? Were the compassionate appointments made by competent authorities liable to cancellation years after confirmation, absent fraud or misrepresentation? What effect did the later policy enlargement and equitable considerations have on the proposed terminations?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The employees relied on Government Resolutions dated 22 October 2008, 31 March 2010, 14 May 2010 and 31 August 2010, which identified Group Instructor as Group-C (Technical) notwithstanding the ₹6,500–10,500 scale. Khond also contended that Training Officer was a feeder-cadre post for promotion to Group B, not itself shown to be Group B. They argued that appointments were made lawfully by competent authorities and could not be cancelled on a selective reading of the Government Resolution of 2 July 2002 and a confidential departmental letter of 19 May 2010. Their lengthy unblemished service, confirmation, and the broader compassionate-appointment policy introduced on 27 September 2021 also supported relief.
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 controversy turned on administrative post classification under applicable Maharashtra Government Resolutions, not on a general presumption that a particular pay band conclusively determines cadre status. The 2008 and 2010 Resolutions placed Group Instructor in Group C; the State showed none had been withdrawn or superseded. In Khond’s case, the State admitted that his father held a Class-III post. The Court treated compassionate appointment as a limited exception to normal competitive recruitment, directed at immediate family hardship. Confirmation after probation creates a right to continued employment subject to service rules. Although the 2021 Resolution widened eligibility to Groups A and B, the Court expressly declined to apply it retrospectively or treat it as the source of either petitioner’s entitlement.
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 found that the State improperly relied on the pay scale and the 2002 Resolution while ignoring later, more specific and operative departmental classifications. The Tribunal likewise failed to assess four material Government Resolutions. Group Instructor was repeatedly designated Group-C (Technical), while the authorities did not substantiate a Group-B classification for Khond’s father, an admitted Class-III employee. Both appointments had been processed by competent officers and followed by completion of probation and confirmation. Neither employee had been accused of fraud or misconduct. After approximately two decades in service, terminating them on a disputed classification would cause serious and disproportionate hardship, aggravated by their having crossed the normal recruitment age.
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: Shri Avinash Kondiram Wagh and Shri Abhay Chandrakant Khond v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: W.P. Nos. 10795 & 10796 of 2014; 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.
