Case Name: Manohar et al v. State of Maharashtra et al.
Case Numbers: Civil Appeal no. in 2025 (which is out of SLP(C) Diary No. 26900 of 2023).
Civil Appeal no. in 2025 (related to SLP(C) Diary No. 25104 of 2025).
Civil Appeal no. _ in 2025 (that which is an appeal from SLP(C) Diary No. 25109 of 2025).
Judgment Date: 28 July 2025 (Supreme Court judgment)
Bench / Judges: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
Introduction
This issue brings forward the case of the Government of Maharashtra’s refusal to grant compassionate leaves to the appellants legal heirs of dead employees which was a result of the appellants’ late application which went beyond the time frame as per government policy. Out of a Bombay High Court which had supported the government’s stand in rejecting these claims, the Supreme Court took up the issue of whether a very late application for a compassionate leave may be considered on equitable grounds which did not fall within the purview of government policy to forgive the delay.
Issues for Determination
Whether there is a case for grant of compassionate appointment which came forward out of the prescribed time as per state policy.
Whether the High Court did not rule on the issue of relief to the widows of government officials that it should have done.
Legal Provisions Involved
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution Writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
Compassionate Leave Scheme of Maharashtra Government (related G.Rs..
Supreme Court precedents on compassionate appointment: Supreme Court rulings in the area of compassionate appointment:.
Maharashtra State v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683.
State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2023) 7 SCC 685 which also reported as West Bengal State v. Debabrata Tiwari.
Appellants’ (Petitioners’)Arguments
Appellants reported that they were the sole breadwinners which at the time of their death left the families in distress. Due to lack of information and financial issues which we had that delayed the application for compassionate appointment. They put forth that which is labeled as compassionate care should be seen as a welfare issue and they also that delayed applications in this regard should not be put to rigid rejection. They put forward equity and humanitarian arguments for condonation of delay.
Respondents’ (State’s) Arguments
Maharashtra State reported that in terms of the present Government Resolution there is a time frame which is fixed for filing of applications for compassionate appointment. The time of the delay went beyond what is acceptable and thus could not be excused. Compassionate leave is not a matter of right and is to be granted only as per the terms of the policy. Courts should not issue appointments against policy.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court has supported the High Court’s reasoning which put forth that compassionate appointment is a issue of policy and not a right but a measure to support families in time of great financial need after the death of a government servant. The Court also brought to notice that this has been a standing tenet in our legal precedent which we as a court stand by. Compassionate leave is a policy issue. Delay in application of the claim which disentitles the applicant from benefit unless the scheme allows for condonation. Equity does not supersede the written policy in service issues. The Court noted the appellants’ hard lot but held that the judicial discretion is a bounded thing within the scheme.
Judgment
The Supreme Court rejected both appeals which were brought to it from the High Court. It was determined that the delay in which the appellants applied for compassionate appointment which was beyond the put forth time frame and which also did not fall within what the scheme forgave, which made the appellants ineligible for relief.
Conclusion
This judgment reports that which has been the Supreme Court’s constant position that compassionate appointments are to be strictly within the parameters of the government’s scheme. Although the Court did note the personal misfortunes of the appellants it put forth that such appointments are not a matter of right and must in fact follow the policy timelines and other rules.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYUSHI TRIVEDI
