Dismissed

Nirmalabai Vishnu Gawali v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Jun 2016WP/1606/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to appoint her son on compassionate grounds, relying on an old application filed by his mother-in-law. The Court held the earlier application was invalid as filed by others and ordered authorities to consider the son's own application from its actual date.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected with direction to consider son's application on merits from date actually filed by him.

Nirmalabai Vishnu Gawali Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 1-wp1606-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1606 OF 2016

¶4

Smt. Nirmalabai w/o. Vishnu Gawali..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors...Respondents

¶7

Mr.G.J.Karne, advocate for petitioner

¶8

Mr.V.S.Badakh, AGP for respondents

¶9

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 08, 2016

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Heard.

¶12

2]This Writ Petition is filed seeking direction

¶13

to respondent no.2 to appoint the petitioner's son

¶14

on compassionate ground by considering the
application dated 29.11.2007 (Exhibit 'C')

¶15

filed by the co-widow of the petitioner namely,

¶16

Rukhminbai and daughter of petitioner Sow.
Shilabai Hiwrale.

¶17

2 1-wp1606-16.odt

¶18

3]The learned Counsel appearing for the

¶19

petitioner invited our attention to the provisions
of Government Resolution dated 26.11.1994 issued

¶20

by the General Administration Department,
Government of Maharashtra and in particular,
Clause 4 thereof. He submits that the petitioner's
prayer to consider the application of her son
Kundan Gawali ought to have been considered on the
basis of the application dated 29.11.2007.
However,therespondents/authoritieshave
considered the prayer of the son of the petitioner
on the basis of the application filed by him on
23.02.2011 (Exhibit 'H'). The learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner further invites our
attention to the contents of Exhibit 'B' i.e. the
letter written by the petitioner to respondent
no.2 and submits that even the petitioner did
mention in the said letter that the petitioner's
family is in desperate need of the employment. He

¶21

3 1-wp1606-16.odt

¶22

further invites our attention to the various
orders passed by this Court which are placed on
record and submits that the present petition
deserves to be allowed.

¶23

4]On the other hand, the learned AGP appearing
for the respondents - State submits that neither
the petitioner nor her son Kundan had filed the
application on 29.11.2007. He submits that the
said application was filed by the co-widow and
daughter of the petitioner. Therefore, the same
could not have been considered as an application

¶24

filed by Kundan. He, therefore, submits that the
respondents/authorities have rightly considered

¶25

the application of Kundan filed by him on
23.02.2011 and accordingly, the name of Kundan has

¶26

been included in the list of eligible candidates
to be appointed on compassionate grounds as per

¶27

their seniority mentioned in the said list.
Therefore, he submits that the Writ Petition may

¶28

4 1-wp1606-16.odt

¶29

be rejected.

¶30

5]We have carefully considered the submissions
of the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned AGP appearing for the
respondent - State. Admittedly, the application
dated 29.11.2007 was not filed by Kundan. It is
relevant to mention here that at the relevant
time, the said Kundan was major. Though the
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner made

¶31

an attempt to contend that the petitioner has
filed an application seeking appointment on
compassionate ground on 28.05.2008 (Exhibit 'B'),
however, the said application does not seen to
have been filed for appointment of Kundan on
compassionate ground. In fact, by filing the said
application, the petitioner sought information
regarding the amounts standing to the credit of
her husband. Therefore, the said document,
Exhibit 'B' page 15 of the compilation of this

¶32

5 1-wp1606-16.odt

¶33

Writ Petition cannot be considered as an

¶34

application for appointment on compassionate
ground by the petitioner. It would have been
different matter if the petitioner herself had
filed an application for appointment on

¶35

compassionate ground and relying upon that
application, her son Kundan could have requested
for seniority from the date of filing of the said

¶36

application. As already observed, the application
dated 29.11.2007 was filed by the co-widow and the
daughter of the petitioner and therefore, the same

¶37

could not have been considered by the authorities

¶38

in respect of seniority of Kundan. Therefore, we
are unable to persuade ourselves to grant the
relief as prayed for by the petitioner in respect

¶39

of his seniority in the list maintained by
respondent no.2. Respondent no. 2 would consider
the claim of Kundan for appointment on
compassionate ground on its own merits as per that
seniority.

¶40

6 1-wp1606-16.odt

¶41

6] Hence, the present petition stands rejected.

¶42

No costs.

¶43

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶44

kbp

Nirmalabai Vishnu Gawali v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmalabai Vishnu Gawali v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Rameshwari Sukhdev Solankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Zilla Parishad Minority Employees and Officers Association through Its President Bashir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravin Dattatray Vyavhare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dadasaheb Govindrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Akhtar Ahmed Md. Shafiuddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravindra Shriharirao Dawkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others