Citation: Hrishikesh Haribhau Chavan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2026:BHC-AS:39732-DB
The Bombay High Court has refused to give a compassionate appointment to a man whose father, a Category ‘B’ employee of Balbharti (the Maharashtra textbook board), died in service in August 2019. At that time, the government policy allowed compassionate appointment only for families of Category ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, so an application by his mother for his elder brother was rejected in 2019 and never challenged. Four years later, in 2023, the younger son applied for the job himself, relying on a 2021 Government Resolution that extended the benefit to Categories ‘A’ and ‘B’ from 1 January 2020. The court (Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam Ankhad) held that his claim must be decided under the policy in force on the date of his father’s death. The 2021 Resolution applies only from 1 January 2020, and his father died before that date, so it could not help him. The court also noted that compassionate appointment is meant to give immediate relief to a family in crisis, and is not a right that can be claimed at any time after long delay. The petition was dismissed.
The Court held that a claim for compassionate appointment is governed by the policy in force on the date the employee died, and a later, more favourable policy cannot be used to claim it. Compassionate appointment is an exception to normal recruitment, not a vested right, and its purpose of immediate relief is lost when the family applies after years of delay.