Dismissed

Smt. Wasanti Wd/O Mansaram Nihite and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr. Secretary, Department of Posts and 3 Others

Bombay HC9 Mar 2012WP/1099/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting a compassionate ground appointment application. The Court found that a prior request merely to add the son to a waiting list did not constitute a formal application for compassionate appointment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Smt. Wasanti Wd/O Mansaram Nihite and Anr. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

0903wp1099.12.odt

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1099 of 2012.

¶6

Smt.Wasanti wd/o Mansaram Nihite and others.

¶7

..vs..

¶8

The Union of India and others.

¶9

=-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶10

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Court's or Judges Order Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶11

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶12

Mr. U.R.Phasate, Adv. for the petitioners.

¶13

C ORAM: S.A.BOBDE AND

¶14

P. B.VARALE, JJ.

¶15

DATED : 9^th MARCH, 2012.

¶16

By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3/8/2011, by which the Tribunal has rejected the Original Application of the petitioners i.e. mother and son, for appointment of petitioner no.2 on the compassionate ground.

¶17

The husband of the petitioner no.1 died on 13/01/1994 and petitioner no.2 made a formal application for the first time on 9/10/1997.

¶18

In these circumstances, having regard to the law laid down by

¶19

¶20

0903wp1099.12.odt

¶21

the Supreme Court that the vacancies for such an appointment are limited and that the only deserving dependent of an employee, who died in harness and whose family is living without any livelihood, is to be appointed, the Central Administrative Tribunal has not granted the petitioner’s prayer.

¶22

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Tribunal committed an error in observing that petitioner no.1 – mother had made a formal application on 9/10/1997 while the first application was made on 6/12/1994.

¶23

We have perused the application dated 6/12/1994. In the said application there was no claim for compassionate appointment for the son but the later made the following request.

¶24

“Therefore, it is requested to kindly to keep my claim on waiting list for my son and oblige.

¶25

Thanking you .”

¶26

In our view, this cannot be treated as an application for compassionate appointment. We, therefore, see no error in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in rejection the application of the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶27

JUDGE JUDGE.

¶28

chute

¶29

0903wp1099.12.odt 3

Smt. Wasanti Wd/O Mansaram Nihite and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr. Secretary, Department of Posts and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Wasanti Wd/O Mansaram Nihite and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr. Secretary, Department of Posts and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah. Thr. the Secty. and 3 Ors. Vs M.J. Bharsakale, Retd. Police Hawaldar

Muslim Education Society, Thr. Secretary Maulana Azad Urdu High School and Junior College of Scienc Vs the Eduction Officer (Secondary), Wardha and Anohter

Dr. Chandraprakash Dattarao Khedkar Vs Union of India, Min. of Agriculture and Ors.

Sau. Saheba Sultana W/O Ansar Abdul Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Principal Secty. and Ors.

Shri Siddharth S/O Bhimrao Adhav Vs Shri Chandu S/O Lahuji Janbandhu, Divisional Secretary, Caste Tribe Sanghatna and 5 Others

Ravindranath Tagore Vidya Prasarak Mandal, through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Education Department and Another