(Kurian Joseph and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)
Supriya Suresh Patil @ Sow Supriya Pratik Kadam _______ Appellant
v.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ____________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 5216 of 2018 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 4420 of 2018], decided on May 09, 2018
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
Kurian, J.:—
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved since her application for compassionate appointment was declined by Respondent No. 3. The appellant was unsuccessful before the High Court.
3. We find from the Judgment of the High Court that the main reason for rejecting the case of the appellant was that the family had managed to survive for over ten years and, therefore, there was no immediate necessity. We are afraid that this cannot be a major reason for rejection. Whether the family pulled on begging or borrowing also should have been one consideration. We do not propose to deal with the matter any further in the peculiar facts of this case. The widow had already been empaneled for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme, but was declined the benefit only on account of crossing the age. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts of this case, her daughter should be considered for compassionate appointment. Ordered accordingly.
4. We make it clear that this order is passed in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice and hence, it may not be treated as a precedent.
5. The needful shall be done by the respondents within one month from today.
6. The impugned Judgment will stand modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of as above.
7. No costs.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4420/2018
Supriya Suresh Patil @ Sow Supriya Pratik Kadam _________ Petitioner
v.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ____________________ Respondent(s)
(IA No. 20606/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 20608/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 09-05-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before Kurian Joseph and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kunal Cheema, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
8. Leave granted.
9. The civil appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.
10. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
———
