Allowed

Narayan Dhanaji Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 May 2016WP/3162/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that rejecting a compassionate appointment claim because the deceased employee accepted the MAARUF Agreement is erroneous, citing prior Division Bench precedents. The impugned communication was quashed, and the authorities were directed to consider the petition subject to other conditions. Rule made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication quashed and set aside; respondents directed to consider petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment expeditiously subject to other conditions.

Narayan Dhanaji Rathod Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

3162.16WP

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3162 OF 2016

¶5

Narayan S/o Dhanaji Rathod ..Petitioner
Age. 32 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. At Post. Janwal, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur.

¶9

3. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parisahd, Latur.

¶10

4. The Executive Engineer (W), Zilla Parishad, Latur.

¶11

5. The Deputy Engineer (W), Zilla Parishad, Sub-Division, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶12

Mr. S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. P.R. Tandale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

¶13

( 2 ) 3162.16WP

¶14

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED :04.05.2016

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : S.S. SHINDE,J.]:-

¶16

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
forthwith with the consent of the parties.

¶17

2.It is case of the petitioner that father of the
petitioner, namely, Dhanaji S/o Jema Rathod was working
with respondent Nos.2 to 5 as Mail-Worker (Mail-Kamgar)
on a permanent post with Ahmedpur Sub-Division. However,
unfortunately, during the course of employment, on 20th
November, 2008, father of the petitioner died. It is
further case of the petitioner that since family of the
petitioner is facing difficulties, the petitioner applied
for appointment on compassionate ground on 03.12.2008.
However, by impugned communication, the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur, communicated the
petitioner that no appointment can be given to the legal
representatives who have accepted MAARUF Agreement.
Hence, this petition.

¶18

3.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
invited our attention to the judgments of Division Bench

¶19

( 3 ) 3162.16WP

¶20

of this Court in the cases of Sharad s/o. Vishnu Mali Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (W.P. No. 5501 of 2008 &
connected petition decided on 28.11.2008), Jalindar Rawan
Awate Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (W.P. No. 5286 of
2011 decided on 17.10.2011), Sunita w/o. Navnath Lokhande
Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (W.P. No.2654 of 2013
& connected petition decided on 05.09.2013) & Namdeo s/o.
Tukaram Sasane Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. (W.P.
No.106 of 2015 decided on 13.01.2015) and submits that in
the said decided cases also controversy in respect of
whether appointment can be given to the legal
representatives of the deceased employee who accepted
MAARUF Agreement was involved. In all these afore-
mentioned unreported judgments, the Division Bench has
taken a view that rejection of the claim of appointment
on compassionate ground on the ground that the deceased
employee was working under MAARUF Agreement was
erroneous.

¶21

4.In that view of the matter, in the present case
also, the petitioner's claim for appointment on
compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that
petitioner's father accepted MAARUF Agreement. In our
opinion as already observed, the issue raised in this
petition is no longer res-integra and covered by the
aforesaid judgments. In that view of the matter the

¶22

impugned communication is quashed and set aside. If
there is vacancy, the respondents are directed to
consider expeditiously the prayer of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground subject to
fulfillment of other conditions.

¶23

5.The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶24

SGA/

Narayan Dhanaji Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Dhanaji Rathod 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Deorao Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinayak Vitthal Jadhav and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Digambar Erappa Manyar Vs the Secretary Rural Development Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Parbhani Education Society Parbhani through Its President Mohammad Abdul Rasheed Engineer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shodhan Yashwant Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sajed Ahmed Ikramoddin and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others