Dismissed

Smt. Anjana Bhagawat Randive v. the Pune Minicipal Corporation , through Its Commissioner and Anr.

Bombay HC31 Oct 2018WP/1822/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a compassionate appointment made to a labour employee. The court held that since family pension was already being received, the appointment placed a burden on the appointee that rendered it a fit case for judicial review.

What did the court decide?

Nothing was granted beyond the dismissal of the petition.

Smt. Anjana Bhagawat Randive Vs the Pune… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

ISM

¶2

1 14.1822.18 WP.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1822 OF 2018

¶6

Smt. Anjana Bhagawat Randive .....Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Pune Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Mr. Prashant Darandale for the Petitioner Mr. R. M. Pethe for the Respondent no. 1

¶11

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT &

¶12

NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 31^st OCTOBER, 2018.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

The order of appointment dated 03/09/2015 in favour of the Respondent no. 2 by which she was appointed on compassionate basis as a Labour by the Pune Municipal Corporation ('PMC' for short) is taken exception to by way of the above Writ Petition. The Respondent no. 2 is the widow of one Manoj Bhagawat Randive who was the son of the Petitioner. The Petitioner's husband Bhagawat

¶16

2 14.1822.18 WP.doc

¶17

Randive was an employee of the Respondent no. 1 i.e. PMC and who died in an accident whilst in employment. On his death, the son of the Petitioner namely Manoj was appointed on compassionate basis in place of his father i.e. Bhagawat Randive. Unfortunately, Manoj also died in an accident resulting in the Respondent no. 2 i.e. his wife being appointed on compassionate basis by the PMC. There is no dispute about the fact that as a heir of the deceased employee, the Respondent no. 2 would be entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. The grievance made by the Petitioner in respect of the appointment of the Respondent no. 2 is that Respondent no. 2 in terms of the nature of appointment is obliged to look after the family. It is required to be noted that the Petitioner is receiving family pension on account of her husband who as indicated above was the employee of the PMC.

¶18

2 We are informed by the learned counsel for the Respondent no.

¶19

1 that Petitioner is receiving pension to the tune of Rs. 6000/-. The Respondent no. 2 is also appointed as a Labour by the PMC. We are informed that she has a child to look after within the means that are

¶20

3 14.1822.18 WP.doc

¶21

available to her. We therefore do not deem this a fit case to exercise our Writ Jurisdiction having regard to the facts as aforestated.

¶22

3 The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] [R. M. SAVANT, J.]

Smt. Anjana Bhagawat Randive v. the Pune Minicipal Corporation , through Its Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anjana Bhagawat Randive v. the Pune Minicipal Corporation , through Its Commissioner and Anr.

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

Shri. Vijaysinha Rupsing Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Tribal Development and Ors.

Shri. Vijaysinha Rupsing Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Pradeep Bhaurao Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Ashok Suklal Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. S.S. Sahoo, Asstt. Reg. Vs Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Jidnyasa Bhaskar Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.