Observing that an aspirant cannot be allowed to seek public employment by deceit, the Bombay High Court held that even if a third child is given in for adoption, still a plea for a compassionate job cannot be considered if the employee had more than two children. The HC accordingly dismissed the plea filed by a girl, whose plea for compassionate job was rejected on the ground that her parents had more than two children.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand Karnik was hearing a plea filed by one Bhagyashree Chopade, who had sought a job on compassionate basis.
Chopade's father Pradeep was employed with the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) and died in October 2014. He had a first daughter, then twin daughters (counted as one child) and a son.
After his death, Pradeep's wife initially applied for compassionate
appointment but it was rejected on the ground of she being over-aged.
Further, in December 2015, Bhagyashree moved a plea before the authorities for compassionate job. She, however, didn't not disclose that she had a younger brother Atharva and this fact was suppressed by both Pradeep as well as his wife and even by Bhagyashree in her plea for the job.
However, after a proper enquiry by the authorities, it was unearthed that Atharva was the son of Pradeep and thus Bhagyashree's plea was rejected.
In her plea before the Chief Justice, Bhagyashree contended that Atharva, though born to her parents but was given in adoption to a relative.
The MIDC relied upon the Government Resolution (GR) issued in March 28, 2001, which ordains that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by a dependent of an
employee dying-in-harness, who is otherwise qualified, if such employee has more than two children.
"In the present case, the deceased employee (Pradeep) had 4 (four) children during his lifetime; but since his second and third daughters were
twins, they were counted as 1 (one) child. Based on the terms of the relevant GR, Bhagyashree's plea was
rejected," the Chief Justice said in his orders.
"The plea of adoption has been raised by Bhagyashree to paint the picture that her family comprises of his widow and 3 (three) daughters of whom the last 2 (two) are twins," the judges noted, adding, "However, nothing turns on such adoption even if it were in accordance with the extant provisions of law."
"The underlying object of the relevant GR is to ensure that the employees who are bound thereby, namely the government employees, do not have
more than 2 (two) children," the judges observed, adding, "In case a third child is born to a government employee, such an employee would not be
entitled to certain benefits which includes an appointment on compassionate ground if such a situation were to arise."
"The condition that the relevant GR brought about being in the nature of a policy decision, which has led to
rejection of Bhagyashree's plea, is neither unreasonable nor violates any right of an employee," the bench held.
"We are of the view that the government policy embodied in the
relevant GR cannot be read in such a manner that it gives scheming parties the chance to defeat it by taking recourse to adoption," the bench said.
The judges further said, "Any attempt on the part of an aspirant for public employment, which is deceitful, has to be sternly dealt with."
