Dismissed

Saroj Wd/O Dinkar Dorle v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2012WP/2150/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds for her deceased husband. She was deleted from the wait list upon completing 40 years. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the age limit extension was not retrospective to cover cases where the 40-year limit was already reached before the new policy. The Tribunal correctly rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Rule discharged.

Saroj Wd/O Dinkar Dorle Vs the State of Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

2150.2012 Writ Petition

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2012

¶6

Smt. Saroj wd/o Dinkar Dorle Age 43 years, Occu. Nil, R/o C/o Mr. Ubale, Infront of Municipal Park, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

2] The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Dhule.

¶11

3] The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Circle, Jalgaon.

¶12

4] The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Circle, Dhule.

¶13

5] The Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

Shri Shaikh Naseer, Advocate for petitioner Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent s/ State

¶16

¶17

2150.2012 Writ Petition

¶18

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &

¶19

U.D. SALVI, J.

¶20

DATED : 26th July, 2012.

¶21

JUDGMENT : (Per U.D. Salvi, J.)

¶22

Heard. Perused.

¶23

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶24

mutual consent.

¶25

This petition brings into question the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad rejecting the Original Application No. 278/2011 preferred by the petitioner-vide order dated 1/8/2011.

¶26

Husband of the petitioner, a Junior Clerk working in the office of respondent No. 4-The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Circle, Dhule died on duty due to heart attack on 18/1/2005. The petitioner preferred an application for service in class-IV category on compassionate grounds on 28/3/2005. The respondent No. 2- The Executive Engineer, Public Works

¶27

¶28

2150.2012 Writ Petition

¶29

Department, Dhule called for revised proposal for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground from the respondent No. 4- The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Circle, Dhule, and the revised proposal dated 29/4/2005 along with the relevant documents was accordingly submitted. According to the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 did not issue an appointment order to the petitioner, despite the Government Resolution dated 23/4/2008 directing the concerned authorities to consider the pending proposals for appointments on compassionate grounds and dispose off all such proposals within three years, and made her to wait till issuance of communication dated 17/8/2010 informing her that her name from the wait list of candidates for appointments on compassionate grounds had been deleted on she completing 40 years of age.

¶30

Considering the subsequent policy decision of the Government to extend the age limit up to 45 years for appointment on compassionate ground vide Government Resolution dated 16/12/2010, learned Advocate for the the petitioner submits, she ought to have been retained on the wait list and appointed on any post of Class-III or Class-IV category on the compassionate ground; and this prompted her to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Aurangabad with a plea

¶31

¶32

2150.2012 Writ Petition

¶33

to strike down the communication dated 17/08/2010 issued by the respondent No. 3-The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Circle, Jalgaon.

¶34

Evidently, there is nothing to substantiate the contention that there were vacancies warranting consideration of her claim for employment during the period between making of her application for appointment on compassionate grounds and the issuance of impugned communication and there was deliberate inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in issuing appointment order to the petitioner before she crossed the age limit. Such has not been her contention before the Tribunal. Only question that fell for the consideration of the Tribunal in Original Application No. 278/2011 preferred by the petitioner was the propriety of deleting her name from the wait list in face of Government Resolution dated 6/12/2010 extending the upper age limit for appointment on compassionate ground to 45 years.

¶35

Admittedly, the petitioner had completed her age of 40 years on 5/1/2009. Reading of Government Resolution dated 6/12/2010, a copy of which is found annexed to the petition at Exhibit G, reveals the Government’s policy decision to extend the upper age limit for giving appointment on compassionate grounds

¶36

¶37

2150.2012 Writ Petition

¶38

to 45 years with effect from 6/10/2010. In the light of these revelations, learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad was right in making following observations and reject the petitioner’s application.

¶39

“ unfortunately for the applicant, she reached upper age limit as was applicable prior to 6/10/2010 on 5/1/2009 and she is so communicated by letter dated 17/08/2010. Both these events have taken place prior to issuance of Government Resolution dated 6/12/2010 and even prior to 6/10/2010, the date since which enhanced age limit has come into force.”

¶40

No interference is, therefore, warranted. Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged accordingly.

¶41

( U.D. SALVI, J. ) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.)

¶42

SDM* July-2012

Saroj Wd/O Dinkar Dorle v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Wd/O Dinkar Dorle v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha Nanded Thr Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Sudhakar Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt Kamalbai Radhakisan Gite Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raur Nyaju Patel Vs the State of Lmaharashtra and Ors.

Pandurang Nivrutti Mone Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raghunath Rangnath Thange Vs the State of Mah and Ors.