Partly allowed

Akash Dilip Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Sept 2021WP/1115/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed a writ petition, relying on recent judgments, to quash an order refusing compassionate appointment. The Court directed the Education Officer to reconsider and pass a reasoned order on the proposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.03.2018 was quashed. The proposal was restored to the file, and the Education Officer was directed to pass a reasoned order.

Akash Dilip Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

921-wp-1115-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

921 WRIT PETITION NO.1115 OF 2020

¶4

AKASH DILIP KALE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Dighe Vithal H. AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. P.S. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. S.S. Wagh

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

¶9

DATED : 01^st SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

We have considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Wagh on behalf of respondent no.3. The learned AGP has strenuously opposed this petition.

¶12

Considering the view taken by this Court in the judgment dated 11.08.2021 delivered in Writ Petition No.4219 of 2018 fled by Smt. Yogita w/o Shivsing Nikam Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others and Writ Petition No.163 of 2020 fled by Sachin Shivajirao Suryawanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, we are of the view that the Education Ofcer could not have refused the approval to the appointment of the petitioner which is made on compassionate basis, on the grounds that there was a ban on recruitment by Government Resolutions dated 12.05.2015 and 18.05.2015 and that the non-teaching stafng pattern was not formalized.

¶13

1/2

¶14

921-wp-1115-2020.odt

¶15

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order should be set aside and the Education Ofcer could be directed to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner for approval, in the light of the judgment dated 11.08.2021.

¶16

In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2018 is quashed and set aside.

¶17

The proposal of the petitioner dated 20.02.2018 forwarded by the management, is restored to the fle of respondent no.2. We direct respondent no.2 to carefully peruse and understand the judgment dated 11.08.2021 and thereafter pass an appropriate reasoned order on the said proposal.

¶18

(S.G. MEHARE. J)

¶19

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)

¶20

Mujaheed//

¶21

2/2

Akash Dilip Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Dilip Kale 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Highways Authority of India Thorugh Ajay P Gadekar Vs Rupesh Anil Jaiswal and Others

Rameshwar Benisingh Gulhot Alias Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bajya Dedya Vasave and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dilip Venkatrao Boienar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajit Madhukarrao Gavhane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Priyanka Rohit More Vs Rohit Vitthal More