Dismissed

Manisha Dipak Samudre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Nov 2019WP/2480/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench disposed of a writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate grounds due to the petitioner's father going missing in 1993. The court held the application filed in 2015 was time-barred under a 1989 Government Resolution requiring filing within five years of the father going missing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; application for compassionate appointment treated as time-barred.

Manisha Dipak Samudre Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 wp 2480.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2480 OF 2019

¶4

MANISHA DIPAK SAMUDRE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Koli Sunil P.
Addl.GP for Respondents No. 1 & 2 :

¶9

Mr. P. S. Patil

¶10

Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. V. M. Vibhute

¶11

...

¶12

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA & MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE: 11th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1.The father of the petitioner went missing in
the year 1993. The applications are filed by the
petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate
ground in the year 2015 and 2018. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only
after the Court gave declaration about the civil

¶15

death of the father of the petitioner, the
petitioner filed an application seeking
appointment on compassionate ground. The
petitioner is already living in miserable

¶16

2 wp 2480.19

¶17

condition. There is no source of income to the
petitioner.

¶18

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the
respondent also.

¶19

3.If the father of the petitioner was missing
and on that ground the petitioner is seeking
appointment, then the application is required to
be filed within five years from the date the
father of the petitioner went missing as per the
Government Resolution dated 06.10.1989. The clause
in that Government Resolution is abundantly clear.
The father of the petitioner went missing in the
year 1993, and for the first time the application
is filed in the year 2015, in view of that the
stand of the respondent cannot be faulted with.

¶20

4.Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

No costs.

¶22

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶23

marathe

Manisha Dipak Samudre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Dipak Samudre 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

Shaikh Sikandar Shaikh Budhan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Jumne Khan Ashraf Khan through Lrs Akbari Beum Jumme Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Deepak Chandrashekhar Balwatkar Vs the Schedueld Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee through Its Chairman and Others

Kusumbai Shamrao Haridas Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Waman Appareddy Sampate and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sadashiv Sopanrao Gude Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another