Disposed

Shubham Vijay Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Mar 2019WP/235/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued directions to the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, to decide the petitioner's representation regarding compassionate appointment within six weeks within a specified period. Dependent's

What did the court decide?

Issued orders directing the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, to decide the representation within six weeks from the date of receipt.

Shubham Vijay Gaikwad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

WP 235/19

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

14 WRIT PETITION NO.235 OF 2019

¶6

SHUBHAM VIJAY GAIKWAD
VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Irale Patil D.R.
AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2: Shri S.P. Sonpawale
Advocate for Respondent no.3 : Shri S.B. Ghute

¶9

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, CJ &
 V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

¶10

DATE: 25.03.2019

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1]It is submitted that the petitioner's father died on
21.7.2004 while in service of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.

¶13

In place of father, mother of the petitioner namely Alka
applied for compassionate appointment and her name was

¶14

entered at Sr.No.3 in the waiting list prepared for
appointments on compassionate ground. As in the year
2016, the mother of the petitioner suffered some illness

¶15

and it was found that she was not suitable to discharge
duties and get employment, therefore, she allowed her son

¶16

i.e. the petitioner herein to apply in her place.

¶17

Accordingly, the petitioner's name was entered in the
list maintained for such purpose at Sr.No.3. As per the
record placed before this Court, the petitioner was minor
when his father died.

¶18

2]The question remains as to in what circumstances the
Zilla Parishad recorded the name of the petitioner in the
waiting list prepared on 29.12.2018 at Sr.No.150.

¶19

3]The representation has been addressed by the
petitioner to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla

¶20

Parishad, Aurangabad, on 1.1.2019 on this very issue and
the State Government has also forwarded the application
of the petitioner to the Zilla Parishad for its
appropriate decision.

¶21

4]In view of the submissions made, we find it

¶22

appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing
following directions:-

¶23

A]The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla

¶24

Parishad, Aurangabad, is directed to decide the
representation of the petitioner dated 1.1.2019
(Exhibit E – page no.42 of the petition) within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of this order.

¶25

WP 235/19 - 3 -

¶26

B]The representation shall be decided by
passing a brief reasoned order, which shall be
communicated to the petitioner.

¶27

C]It is clarified that we have not expressed
any opinion on merits of the petitioner's claim.
D]Since Advocate Shri S.B. Ghute has appeared
today on behalf of Zilla Parishad – respondent
no.3, he shall intimate the aforesaid order to
the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad.

¶28

E]The petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶29

(V.M. DESHPANDE, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

ndk/ c253197.doc

Shubham Vijay Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Vijay Gaikwad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vitthal S/O Digambar Dake Vs the State of Maharashra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vithal S/O. Pandurang Dhage

Tulshiram S/O. Fakirrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devyani Bahuuddeshiya Mahila Sanstha through President Sundarbai Sakharam Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Gajanan Ananda Chikatwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sudam S/O. Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra