Quashed

Mrs. Usha Krishnat Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2015WP/10630/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a communication order denying appointment on compassionate grounds. It directed respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case on merits within eight weeks, applying principles from cited precedents regarding married daughters' entitlements.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication letter/order dated 26-5-2014 is quashed. Petitioner permitted to file additional representation. Respondents to reconsider case within eight weeks.

Mrs. Usha Krishnat Shinde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

dgm 1

¶2

51-wp-10630-14.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10630 OF 2014

¶5

Mrs.Usha Krishnat Shinde .... Petitioner vs

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors .... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Makarand Kale with Mr. S.R. Ghanawat for the petitioner. Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP for respondent No.1. Ms. Pallavi Thakar for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶8

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A. A. SAYED, JJ.

¶9

DATE : September 07, 2015

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Rule,returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

¶12

2 We are inclined to direct the Respondent/Corporation

¶13

to reconsider the case of Petitioner in view of judgments in Vijaya Ukarda Athor (Athawale) v. State of Maharashtra, (2015 (1) SCALE 432, Aparna Narendra Zambre v. Assistant Superintendent Engineer, Krishna-Koyna Upsa Sinchan Project Board, 2011 (5) Bom CR 34, U. Arulmozhi v. The Director of School Education, The Chief Educational Officer, The District Educational Officer and The

¶14

Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,

¶15

1/2

¶16

dgm 2 51-wp-10630-14.sxw

¶17

MANU/TN/8361/2006 and Writ Petition No.6056 of 2010- The State of Maharashtra v. Medha Prashant Parkhe decided on 26.10.2010 (Smt.Nishita Mhatre,J.) by the Petitioner referring to the entitlement even of married daughter to be appointed on compassionate ground. However, we are directing the Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner on its own merits, but subject to the decisions so referred above and by passed reasoned order which, in the present case, is definitely missing in communication dated 2;6.05.2014.

¶18

3 Therefore, by keeping all points open, impugned communication letter/order dated 26-5-2014 is quashed and set aside. The Petitioner is permitted to file additional representation with supporting documents within two weeks. The Respondents to reconsider the case of Petitioner in accordance with law as early as possible and preferably within eight weeks. All points are kept open. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

4 Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶20

(A. A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶21

2/2

Mrs. Usha Krishnat Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Usha Krishnat Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chatrapati Shahu Maharaj Shikshan and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Karan S/O Ramchandra Jagtap and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Ashabai Kishan Lohakare married name Smt. Asha Ulhas Shingade Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Lalita Bhagwan Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Abhijit S/O. Kondiba Kharje Vs Director General of Police, Mr. Sanjeev Dayal and Ors.

Mrs. Usha Krishnat Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.