JUDGMENT : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is rendered a widow at a young age, has rushed to this Court by putting forth prayer clause ‘C’. “C. By appropriate writ order or direction the impugned order dated 18-12-2017 passed by the Respondent No. 02 thereby refusing to accord the approval to the petitioner for the appointment on the post of Peon on compassionate ground may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 3. In the second petition, the petitioner, who is the son of a deceased employee, has also approached this Court by putting forth prayer clauses ‘B, C and D’. “B. By issue of Writ of mandamus or Order or direction in the like nature, the impugned order dated 10-12-2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Nanded whereby rejecting the approval of the Petitioner, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.” “C. By issue of Writ of mandamus or Order or direction in the like nature, the Respondent No. 2 Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Nanded may kindly be directed to grant approval to the post of peon to the Petitioner with further directions to release his arrears and salary forthwith.” “D. To hold and declare that, the appointment of petitioner on the post of peon on compassionate ground is legal and valid one.” 4. In Writ Petition No. 163 of 2020, since the Education Officer has passed yet another order dated 9-8-2021 refusing to accord approval to the compassionate appointment of the petitioner, we grant leave to the petitioner to amend the petition and add prayer clause ‘B(1)’ to assail the said order. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Consequentially, prayer clause ‘B(1)’ reads as under : “B(1) By issue of Writ of Mandamus or order or direction in the like nature, the impugned order dated 9-8-2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Education Officer (Secondary) may kindly be quash and set aside.” 5. We have extensively heard the learned advocates for the respective sides. Consequentially, prayer clause ‘B(1)’ reads as under : “B(1) By issue of Writ of Mandamus or order or direction in the like nature, the impugned order dated 9-8-2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Education Officer (Secondary) may kindly be quash and set aside.” 5. We have extensively heard the learned advocates for the respective sides. Time and again, we have dealt with cases in which compassionate appointment have been made and approval is denied or the appointment itself is refused on the grounds that, (a) There is a ban on fresh recruitment or filling up vacant posts, (b) Status-quo is ordered by the Government, or (c) Compassionate appointment cannot be made since it has to be verified whether the post is available. 6. Time and again and without an exception, this Court has ruled that appointment of a candidate on compassionate grounds would not be affected by (a) a ban on recruitment or (b) staffing pattern having been undertaken by the Government. Not a single order passed by this Court is placed before us which would indicate that this Court has concluded that the moment a permanent employee dies in harness, the permanent post occupied by him will either extinguish or stand abolished or that it can be treated as being a vacancy to be affected by a ban on recruitment. 7. These are two peculiar cases before us and in the above mentioned backdrop of litigation, we are constrained to first discuss the law laid down by this Court before we proceed to deal with the submissions of the State Government and its various Government Resolutions. 8. We are referring to the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ; (a) Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , (b) Local Administration Department and another vs. M. Selvanayagam Alias Kumaravelu, (2011) 13 SCC 42 , (c) Canara Bank and another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, AIR 2015 SC 2411 . (d) Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1596 . (e) Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 STPL 9892 SC. (f) Shattuppa L. Patil vs. Central Bank of India, Writ Petition No. 1549 of 2006, judgment dated 23-10-2007 (High Court of Karnataka). (d) Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1596 . (e) Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 STPL 9892 SC. (f) Shattuppa L. Patil vs. Central Bank of India, Writ Petition No. 1549 of 2006, judgment dated 23-10-2007 (High Court of Karnataka). (g) Smt. Meena Dhaigude vs. Maha Pravandhak, State Bank of India, W.P.No. 7249 of 2012, judgment dated 26-7-2021 (Madhya Pradesh High Court, Bench at Indore). 9. A consistent view has been taken by the Supreme Court in matters of death of a permanent employee and the applicability of the policy of compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that granting compassionate appointment is a humane act. A family which is rendered to the comforts of life, there being a bread earner in the family, is shaken up with the death of such a bread earner. This virtually throws the family into a financial crisis. The purpose for which compassionate appointment schemes have been introduced is laudable since it ensures that the family which has suddenly faced a tragedy and is in mental and financial distress, would be provided with succour. A model employer would ensure that such a family is not rendered to starvation and it’s members are not required to beg for keeping their mind, body and soul together. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, with passage of a long duration of time, the family is no longer in financial stringency or distress and does not require any financial support, which would be a ground for declining compassionate appointment. There are cases before this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein candidates seeking compassionate appointment have approached after a passage of 10 years or 15 years and this Court has ruled that no purpose would be served in granting compassionate appointment in such cases. 10. It appears from the material placed before us by the learned AGP, Mr. Yawalkar that the State Government of Maharashtra has issued several resolutions providing for compassionate appointment. 10. It appears from the material placed before us by the learned AGP, Mr. Yawalkar that the State Government of Maharashtra has issued several resolutions providing for compassionate appointment. However, we do not find a single Government Resolution which would indicate a complete ban on recruitment or that a direction to maintain status-quo as regards recruitment would apply to compassionate appointment or that a post available for compassionate appointment would be subject matter of a staffing pattern or that until such staffing pattern is declared by the Government, compassionate appointments would be prohibited. 11. On 3-9-1990, the State Government issued a Government Resolution to provide compassionate appointment to an eligible member of a family, whose sole bread earner has suffered death, while in employment or has been discharged from employment on account of medical incapacitation. Voluntary retirement taken by a permanent employee, who is suffering from a grave disease or terminal illness, is also covered by such Government Resolution. 12. In a series of such Government Resolutions, the State also introduced the Government Resolution dated 31-12-2002, which makes a reference to 17 Government Resolutions earlier issued. Vide the said Government Resolution, the State resolved as under : 13. Annexure-A to the Government Resolution dated 31-12-2002, lays down the parameters to be applied for appointment of an eligible candidate, on compassionate basis. We do not intend to enlarge the size of this judgment by reproducing the contents of Annexure-A. Suffice it to say that, there is no prohibition or bar introduced by the State on an appointment on compassionate ground, as is vehemently canvassed by the learned AGP. 14. We find from the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Nagraoji Ugale (supra) that the State of Maharashtra had referred to three Government Resolutions dated 22-8-2005, 22-3-2012 and 1-3-2014. It became obvious in Yogesh (supra) that the State of Maharashtra had never imposed a complete ban on compassionate appointments. The Government Resolution dated 22-8-2005 had only restricted recruitment on compassionate basis to 5% in groups “C” and “D” and by the Government Resolution dated 1-3-2014, the compassionate appointments were increased to the limit of 10% of the posts. It was thus concluded in Yogesh (supra) as under : “7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have perused the material on record. 7.1. It was thus concluded in Yogesh (supra) as under : “7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have perused the material on record. 7.1. In the present case, the Appellant admittedly possesses the educational qualifications for the post of Peon. The Appellant has an S.S.C. Degree along with MS. C.I.T. 7.2. Even though Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 contended that there is a ban since 2005 for appointment on compassionate grounds, a relaxation was initially granted for persons on the wait list till 31-12-2011. Thereafter, vide Government Resolution dated 1-3-2014 bearing No. AKP-1014/Pra. Kra. 34/8 the Government of Maharashtra decided to increase the recruitment of ‘Group C and D’ posts on compassionate ground from 5% to 10%. On 2-4-2014, the Government released a Supplementary Order to this Resolution stating that all employment authorities shall take action every year to fill up the posts reserved for compassionate appointment upto 10% of vacant posts of Class C and D from 2012. This reveals that the Government was continuing to make appointments on compassionate grounds despite the ban of 2005, and in fact had increased the number of posts earmarked for compassionate appointment to 10%. 7.3. A perusal of the Order dated 31-5-2013 passed by the Education Officer reveals that during the hearing, Respondent No. 3 – President of the Society stated that the Society was ready to appoint the Appellant on compassionate grounds, if the Education Officer grants the permission. The Education Officer had in the proceedings dated 31-5-2013 recorded that there are 2 post of Junior Clerk vacant in the two Schools run by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, where the Appellant could be appointed. This fact has not been either adverted to, or considered by the High Court, in the impugned judgment.” “8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the Appeal, and set aside the Judgment passed by the High Court on 19-11-2014 in W.P. No. 3520 of 2014. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to submit the proposal for appointment of the Appellant before the Respondent No. 2 – the Education Officer within one month, so that necessary orders can be passed on the application of the appellant. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.” 15. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to submit the proposal for appointment of the Appellant before the Respondent No. 2 – the Education Officer within one month, so that necessary orders can be passed on the application of the appellant. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.” 15. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department State of Maharashtra, issued a circular on 4-2-2020 referring to the Government Resolution dated 11-9-2019 and a notification dated 20-9-2020 (should be read as 20-9-2019). The said circular is addressed to all the Chief Executive Officers of the Zilla Parishad and Deputy Commissioners – Establishments in the State of Maharashtra. The decision taken by the said department reads as under : It is thus obvious that the Government Resolution dated 11-9-2019 provides for a ceiling of 20% on recruitment on compassionate grounds and mandates expeditious action. 16. The learned Division Bench of this Court, at it’s Principal Seat, delivered an order on 11-12-2018 in Writ Petition No. 7507 of 2016 filed by Smt. Samita Sameer Desai and another vs. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and another. The case involved the death of the husband of the petitioner, who was working as a Peon in the petitioner No. 2 – School. He passed away on 2-11-2011 and petitioner No. 1, his widow, came to be appointed on compassionate ground. The widow had a minor son aged 6 years and a minor daughter aged 4 years. They were solely dependent upon the source of income of the deceased. She moved an application on 6-2-2012 for appointment on compassionate ground with reference to the policy enunciated by the Government of Maharashtra vide the Government Resolution dated 31-12-2002 (relevant portion reproduced herein above). 17. The facts in Smt. Samita Sameer Desai (supra) indicate that the application of the widow was considered by the School Committee and it was resolved to appoint her on compassionate basis in place of her deceased husband. An appointment order dated 29-5-2012 was issued in her favour. This Court has observed in paragraph No. 8 of the order that the reasonable expectation was that the widow would be appointed in place of her husband as a peon, keeping in view that the post occupied by the deceased was approved by the State Authorities. This was, however, opposed by the State authorities and the approval was not granted. This Court has observed in paragraph No. 8 of the order that the reasonable expectation was that the widow would be appointed in place of her husband as a peon, keeping in view that the post occupied by the deceased was approved by the State Authorities. This was, however, opposed by the State authorities and the approval was not granted. An earlier Writ Petition No. 3505 of 2015 filed by the widow was disposed off with a direction to the Education Department to decide the proposal for grant of approval. Unfortunately, the State relied on the Government Resolution dated 2-5-2012, which imposed a ban on making appointments in secondary schools and opposed the approval to be granted to the widow. The second reason put forth by the Government was that though the appointment of the peon was as per the staffing pattern, the post in question was not included in the staffing pattern. On these two grounds, the approval was refused. 18. In view of the above, this Court concluded in paragraph No. 9 as under : “9 It is common ground that the appointment is sought by petitioner No. 1 on compassionate ground. The very object and purpose of such employment and conferring a power to make appointment on compassionate ground is that the employer assists the family to tide over the financial crisis caused by the loss of bread winner. It is an assistance to the family and which is in distress. In the circumstances, this is not a fresh appointment or an appointment which ordinarily requires the approval. All that would suffice is an intimation from petitioner No. 2 that the husband of petitioner No. 1 was already appointed as a Peon and that post was permanent and duly sanctioned. Having appointed him, it was revealed that he died suddenly on 2nd November, 2011. In his place, in terms of Government policy, compassionate appointment was sought and it is that appointment which has been made. There is no post created nor is there any question of an appointment being made through recruitment process which was covered by the ban. The ban, thus, could not have covered this appointment.” 19. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents in Samita Sameer Desai (supra) relied upon an affidavit-in-reply and contended that as there was a ban, the approval was rightly refused. The ban, thus, could not have covered this appointment.” 19. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents in Samita Sameer Desai (supra) relied upon an affidavit-in-reply and contended that as there was a ban, the approval was rightly refused. This Court concluded that it was unable to accept the contentions of the respondents for the reason that the appointment of the widow cannot be said to be an illegal appointment and no prior approval of the Education Department was necessary. It was then held that the appointment on compassionate basis is made in terms of the Government Resolution dated 31-12-2002. This has not been superseded by any subsequent Government Resolution, as on 11-12-2018 when this court delivered the order. The very object of compassionate appointment is to ensure that a source of income is made available to the family. Ultimately, this court quashed and set aside the order of refusal of approval and declared that her appointment on compassionate grounds with effect from the date of her appointment was duly approved and she was held entitled to all benefits, salary, emoluments etc. attached to the said post. 20. In yet another judgment dated 10-3-2021 delivered by this Court at the Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 15018 of 2019 filed by Bharati Bhausaheb Thakare vs. State of Maharashtra and others, this Court had noted that the husband of the petitioner widow was in permanent employment and he died while in service. The widow was appointed on compassionate ground. However, the proposal for approval of her appointment was turned down. The judgment delivered by this Court in Smt. Samita Sameer Desai (supra) was cited and this Court agreed with the view taken by the learned Bench and quashed and set aside the order of the Education Officer refusing to grant approval. 21. We have perused the Writ Petition paper book of this case (Bharati Bhausaheb Thakare) to appraise ourselves as regards the reasons assigned by the Education Officer for refusing approval to the compassionate appointment of Smt. Bharati (supra). Having perused the impugned order dated 13-9-2019, Annexure-G to the said petition, we find that the refusal is based on two grounds. Firstly, that there was a ban on recruitment and secondly, as the staffing pattern was not yet formalized, the approval could not have been granted. Having perused the impugned order dated 13-9-2019, Annexure-G to the said petition, we find that the refusal is based on two grounds. Firstly, that there was a ban on recruitment and secondly, as the staffing pattern was not yet formalized, the approval could not have been granted. By judgment dated 10-3-2021, this Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by Smt. Bharati Bhausaheb Thakare and granted her all the service benefits attached to her post from the date of her joining duties. 22. Having discussed the legal position, rather the crystallized position of law with regard to compassionate appointment, compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of recruitment. 23. In the two cases before us, the impugned orders lead to the denial of approval for the compassionate appointment of the petitioners by placing reliance upon an inapplicable Government Resolution dated 12-2-2015 which introduced a ban on recruitment of teaching and non teaching posts. So also, the other reason for denial of approval is that the staffing pattern for the non teaching posts is yet to be sanctioned for the academic year 2014-2015 and hence, the approval cannot be granted. 24. In the second petition, the reason for refusal of approval is based on yet another Government Resolution of Government dated 23-10-2013 by which a committee was formed by the State Government for preparing the staffing pattern for several categories of employees and the said committee had directed status-quo to be maintained with regard to recruitment and filling up of vacant posts. The other reason for refusing approval was that the State Government has introduced a Government Resolution dated 28-1-2019 by which staffing pattern for the non teaching posts falling in the Class-III category had been formalized, but, such a staffing pattern for the Class-IV category was still pending. In this petition filed by Sachin, in the second impugned order dated 9-8-2021 refusing approval, the Education Officer concludes that the Maharashtra Government has decided to abolish Class-IV non-teaching employees’ posts immediately after the employee retired. The Education Officer, therefore, advised that if the case of Sachin Suryawanshi is forwarded along with other candidates, who have been appointed by following the regular recruitment process, the Education Officer would consider his case for approval. 25. We find this reason to be astonishing. The Education Officer, therefore, advised that if the case of Sachin Suryawanshi is forwarded along with other candidates, who have been appointed by following the regular recruitment process, the Education Officer would consider his case for approval. 25. We find this reason to be astonishing. An employee who is already appointed on compassionate grounds is unjustifiably refused approval and the Management is advised to send a proposal indicating that the said employee has been subsequently selected on a permanent vacant post so as to consider his case for approval. 26. Despite the legal position discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, Mr. Yawalkar, the learned AGP, on instructions from the State, has canvassed as under : (a) If there is a ban on recruitment, as per Government Resolution dated 12-2-2015, it would apply also to compassionate appointment. (b) If there is a status-quo on recruitment ordered by the State Government, such status-quo would apply even to compassionate appointments. (c) If the staffing pattern is not yet formalized, a compassionate appointment cannot be approved because the death of a permanent employee leads to the creation of a vacancy and it is only on the basis of the staffing pattern that a decision will have to be taken that such a vacant post will amount to a sanctioned permanent post. 27. Considering the settled position of law, we called upon Mr. Yawalkar to respond as to whether his above recorded submissions would stand the test of law laid down in the judgments delivered in Yogesh (supra), Samita Sameer Desai (supra) and Bharati Bhausaheb Thakare (supra). He submits that since the death of an employee occupying a permanent post would amount to creation of a vacancy, the ban on recruitment, the status-quo with regard to recruitment and the appointment pending formalization of the staffing pattern, would be suitable grounds for refusing approval to the appointment on compassionate grounds. 28. To say the least, we are shocked by the stand taken by the State Government, which is not only against logic and reason, but is in complete contradiction to the law crystallized by this Court in numerous judgments. It is unconscionable for the State to canvass such grounds virtually rendering the bereaved family to starvation. 28. To say the least, we are shocked by the stand taken by the State Government, which is not only against logic and reason, but is in complete contradiction to the law crystallized by this Court in numerous judgments. It is unconscionable for the State to canvass such grounds virtually rendering the bereaved family to starvation. We find that the State has consistently ensured that not a single Government Resolution, pertaining to ban on recruitment, stay on filling in vacant posts and prohibition on appointments until the staffing pattern of the non teaching posts is formalized, would apply to appointments made on compassionate grounds. This Court has also consistently taken a view that compassionate appointment would be an exception to the mandatory rule of following specific selection procedure for recruitment on vacant posts or on newly created posts. 29. We have noticed the agony caused to litigants in such cases. We, therefore, find it appropriate at this stage to record that after the delivery of this judgment, if any case refusing approval to a compassionate appointment which is otherwise legally sustainable satisfying the eligibility criteria, comes to this Court, we would be issuing directions recommending strict disciplinary action against the Education Officer and we would not hesitate to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against persons responsible, since they are interpreting the Government Resolutions in the most inappropriate manner, despite the crystalised position of law. Because of such acts of the Education Officers, widows and eligible candidates are compelled to rush to this Court after having suffered mental and physical agony of a personal loss of a sole bread earner and also spend on litigation which is costly these days. We would also impose heavy costs to be recovered from the salaries of such Education Officers for the pain caused to such petitioners. We find it appropriate to record that if the Education Officer notices that a particular Management is attempting to defeat the rights of an eligible candidate for compassionate appointment, the Education officer would be at liberty to initiate appropriate action against such Management. 30. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. The impugned orders stand quashed and set aside. Approvals stand granted to these petitioners from the dates of their joining duties on compassionate basis, with all monetary benefits accruing to their posts. Formal approval orders shall be issued by the concerned Education Officers, before 30-9-2021. 30. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. The impugned orders stand quashed and set aside. Approvals stand granted to these petitioners from the dates of their joining duties on compassionate basis, with all monetary benefits accruing to their posts. Formal approval orders shall be issued by the concerned Education Officers, before 30-9-2021. 31. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded shall deposit an amount of ` 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, as costs, from their salary bank account in this Court, on or before 30-9-2021 and these two petitioners namely Smt. Yogita and Mr. Sachin, shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount subject to proper identification, without conditions. In the event, any of these two Education Officers has retired, the said amount shall be recovered from his pension. Compliance of this order shall be reported to this Court upto 15-10-2021, by the respective Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. 32. We direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to place this order before the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya to be circulated to all concerned. The concerned Secretary shall pass appropriate instructions to all concerned officers in the State of Maharashtra. 33. We need to clarify that, in cases relating to a candidate not being eligible to occupy the post of the deceased father/parent and, therefore, has to be accommodated on some other inferior post in another class, the authority empowered to make compassionate appointment, shall verify whether such post is available or not and shall list the candidate in the wait list of eligible candidates. 34. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.