Disposed

Nitin Hilal Salunke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Feb 2019WP/1492/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Kunbi caste OBC, approached the High Court for quick disposal of a pending compassionate appointment proposal submitted in 2017. The Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the Education Officer to decide the proposal within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent Education Officer to decide the pending compassionate appointment proposal within 12 weeks.

Nitin Hilal Salunke Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 ) wp1492.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1492 OF 2019

¶4

NITIN HILAL SALUNKE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr.Prasad Dikle h/f. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for the
petitioner.

¶7

Mr.K.N. Lokhande, AGP for respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :04.02.2019

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

1.Heard Mr. Prasad Dikle h/f. Mr. V.S. Panpatte,

¶11

learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is
approaching this Court by way of present writ petition

¶12

with limited grievance. Learned Counsel Mr. Dikle

¶13

invited our attention to the documents placed on record
to submit that the petitioner is belonging to Kunbi caste
recognized as Other Backward Class. The petitioner's

¶14

father expired on 20.10.2016 leaving behind him his wife
- Nirmalbai, son i.e. the petitioner and a daughter -
Nutan. The petitioner on 22.10.2016 submitted an

¶15

application for compassionate appointment in place of his
father. The application was favourably considered by
passing a resolution. The petitioner was appointed on
30.10.2016. Copy of the appointment order is also placed
on record. Learned Counsel further submitted that in-
spite of petitioner working with respondent No.3-
institute and respondent No.4-school for more than two
years as of now and in-spite of proposal forwarded to the
Education Officer (Secondary) i.e. respondent No.2
through respondent No.4 on 21.11.2017, the Education
Officer is sitting idle over the proposal. It is also
submitted by the learned Counsel that the delay in
decision is causing some prejudice to the petitioner. In
view of the delay, the petitioner is not receiving his
timely monetary benefits.

¶16

2.This being a limited grievance raised in the
petition, the petition is disposed of at the admission
stage with direction to respondent No.2 - Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule to decide the

¶17

( 3 ) wp1492.19

¶18

proposal dated 21.11.2017 as expeditiously as possible

¶19

and not later than 12 weeks from the date of the order.

¶20

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]

¶21

snk/2019/FEB19/wp1492.19

Nitin Hilal Salunke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Hilal Salunke 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

Pandurang Rangnath Kurhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sarla Gajanan Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sunil Prabhakar Mirkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tejas Laxman Kolod through Father Laxman Ramchandra Kolod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajeshwar Piraji Kolod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Milind Vijay Shewale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others