Allowed

Devendra Madan Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Apr 2016WP/3576/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench issued a rule and ruled on the petitioner's writ petition regarding the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment. The court held that rejection based on the father's employment under a Maaruf Agreement was erroneous, relying on W.P. No.5501/2008.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 16/12/2013 set aside and the claim directed to be considered expeditiously without negation on the grounds of the father's Maaruf Agreement appointment.

Devendra Madan Kakde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 47-wp3576-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3576 OF 2016

¶4

DEVENDRA MADAN KAKDE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr.Shrimant Munde, advocate i/b. Mr.P.K.Wagh,
advocate for petitioner

¶8

Mr.V.S.Badakh, AGP for respondent no.1 – State

¶9

Mr.S.B.Mundhe, advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3

¶10

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 25, 2016

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

2]Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

¶14

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing at admission state.

¶15

3]The limited grievance raised in this petition
is that the prayer of the petitioner for

¶16

2 47-wp3576-16.odt

¶17

appointment on compassionate ground has been

¶18

rejected on the ground that the father of the
petitioner was working under Maaruf Agreement.

¶19

4]The ground on which the application of the
petitioner was rejected was not sustainable in the
light of the judgment of this Court in Writ
Petition No.5501/2008 (Sharad s/o Vishnu Mali Vs.
The State of Maharashtra) with connected writ
petition thereto, decided on 28th November, 2008.

¶20

5] The Division Bench of this Court, while
considering the similar controversy which is raised
in this petition, in paragraph no.4 of the said
judgment, held that the rejection of the cases of
the petitioners for compassionate appointment on
the ground that their fathers were working under

¶21

Maaruf agreement was erroneous. In that view of

¶22

the matter, in our opinion, the ground, on which
the petitioner's claim for appointment on

¶23

3 47-wp3576-16.odt

¶24

compassionate ground has been negated by the

¶25

respondents, cannot survive. In the circumstances,
the impugned communication dated 16/12/2013 (Exh.D)
is set aside. The respondents are directed to
consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with
the Government Resolution / policy, however, the
same should not be negated / rejected again on the
ground that the petitioner's father was appointed
under the Maaruf agreement.

¶26

6]It is needless to observe that since the
petitioner is waiting for a considerable period,
the respondents shall consider his claim
expeditiously.

¶27

7]The petition stands disposed of in the above
terms. Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶28

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.]

¶29

[S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶30

kbp

Devendra Madan Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Madan Kakde 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phoenix Foundation Sanstha through Its Treasurer Amar Pasha Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abid Hussain Zainoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ansari Sadequa Bano Shafique Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jayashree Bhaskar Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Swati Kakasaheb Pawar Vs Sachin Nagnath Jagtap and Another

Shivaji Shahajirao Jahagirdar Vs Sachin Nagnath Jagtap and Another