Dismissed

Sarjerao Shankarrao Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Mah and and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2014WP/5168/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, petitioners sought employment direction based on an alleged oral assurance given when their father gifted land for a health centre. The court held the authority cannot agree to employment without adhering to service regulations. Rejection of the petition rendered the linked rent application disposed of. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

1] Rejection of the writ petition seeking direction for employment and compensation. 2] Disposal of the dependent Civil Application No.14432/2012.

Sarjerao Shankarrao Shinde and Anr. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

 WP 5168/12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.5168/2012

¶6

Sarjerao Shankarrao Shinde
and Bhagwanrao Shankarrao Shinde.

¶7

...Petitioners..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector,
Aurangabad & three others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri A.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri M.M. Nerlikar, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri A.S. Usmanpurkar, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Respondent no.4 served.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE: 08.04.2014

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]The petitioners are praying for directions to the

¶17

respondents to offer employment to them in consideration
of gift of immovable property by their father in favour
of respondent - Zilla Parishad for constructing a Primary

¶18

Health Centre. It has not been disputed that the
petitioners' father gifted 1 Acre 20 Gunthas land out of

¶19

 WP 5168/12

¶20

Gut No.105 of village Sukhapuri in favour of Zilla
Parishad for construction of a Primary Health Centre.
Accordingly, Zilla Parishad took possession of the

¶21

property and completed the construction. The petitioners
contend that at the time of taking over possession of the
property, an assurance was given to father of the
petitioners that his two sons i.e. the petitioners herein
would be offered employment in the hospital. Since the
respondents have not adhered to the oral assurance, the
petitioners have approached this Court claiming a
direction against the concerned respondents.

¶22

2]The respondents have caused their appearance and the

¶23

contention raised by the petitioners in respect of
extending assurance for providing employment for them has

¶24

been controverted. There is no agreement, as contended

¶25

by the petitioners, and in our opinion, in law, the

¶26

respondents are not empowered to enter into such an
agreement. The respondent - authorities cannot extend an
assurance in respect of providing public employment
without adhering to the relevant service regulations.

¶27

3]The petitioners contend that the alleged gift-deed

¶28

executed by their father is not in accordance with

¶29

 WP 5168/12

¶30

provisions of law and they are entitled to claim
compensation in respect of the land taken in possession
by the Zilla Parishad.

¶31

instant petition does not deserve consideration. It
would be open for the petitioners to pursue remedies, if
available in law for claiming compensation of land
allegedly gifted in favour of Zilla Parishad. The
petition is devoid of substance and hence stands
rejected.

¶32

5]In view of rejection of the instant petition, Civil
Application No.14432/2012 claiming payment of rent does
not survive and hence stands disposed of.

¶33

ndk/c841428

Sarjerao Shankarrao Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Mah and and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarjerao Shankarrao Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Mah and and Ors.

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

Babanrao Hariharrao Deshmukh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Megha Chandrakant Kale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajay Ashokrao Ghatole and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S. Kalyan Infratech Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Arya Cotton Co. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Prabhakar Dagdu Borkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.