Disposed

Bharat S/O Madhukar Sabale v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Education, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC8 Dec 2023WP/7159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought compassionate appointment for the petitioner after his father's death. The High Court directed the respondents to decide the representation and pass a reasoned order within four weeks, as they are duty-bound to consider it under existing policy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to decide the representation and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

Bharat S/O Madhukar Sabale Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 WP-7159-2023.odt

¶2

2023:BHC-NAG:16963-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No.7159 of 2023

¶5

Bharat S/o Madhukar Sabale

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of direction Court's or Judge's order
and the Registrar's orders.

¶9

Shri Naresh Kolhe, Counsel for Petitioner. Shri D.P. Thakre, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 8th DECEMBER,2023 .

¶11

1. In this petition, the prayer of the petitioner is for the grant of
compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father who was
working as a Lecturer in respondent No.3-College, run by respondent No.3-
Society, registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and managed
by the respondent No.3-Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Washim.
The deceased father of the petitioner is informed to have been appointed as a
Lecturer in 1989 and died on 16-10-2010.

¶12

2.According to the petitioner, he is S.S.C. pass and as such entitled to be
appointed in the Class-IV category with the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The
petitioner made a representation in this regard to respondent No.3, a copy of
which was also forwarded to the Collector, Washim, as could be noticed from the
communications, which are placed on record, particularly the communication
dated 8-12-2014 issued by the Collector, Washim to the Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Washim, and the communication dated 25-5-2016
issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Washim, to the
respondent Nos.3, so also other communications issued by the same authorities.
We are informed that to this date, respondent No.3 has not decided the
representation of the petitioner.

¶13

2 WP-7159-2023.odt

¶14

3.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The
learned Additional Government Pleader would urge that it is for the respondents
Nos.3 and 4 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and if
such vacancy exists, to grant such appointment to the petitioner in accordance
with law.

¶15

4. Having considered the rival claims, what can be noticed is that the representation of the petitioner for a grant of compassionate appointment was forwarded by respondent No.2- Education Officer to respondents No.3 and 4.

¶16

5.In law, having regard to the existence of the policy for grant of
appointment on compassionate grounds, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are duty
bound to deal with the representation of the petitioner which was forwarded to
them by the respondent No.2- Education Officer

¶17

6.In the aforesaid background, we deem it appropriate to direct the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 to decide the representation of the petitioner for grant
of compassionate appointment by passing a reasoned order in accordance with
law in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
order by the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶18

7. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

8. Needless to observe, it shall be open for the petitioner to question the order passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, if it is adverse to him.

¶20

9.We are dispensing with the presence of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, as the
order passed is innocuous, i.e. not detrimental to the interests of the respondent
Nos.3 and 4, as we are only directing the said respondents to decide the
representation of the petitioner in accordance with the law.

¶21

 (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶22

SAMBRE, J.)

¶23

LANJEWAR

Bharat S/O Madhukar Sabale v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Education, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat S/O Madhukar Sabale v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Education, Mumbai 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

Chetansingh S/O Kalyansing Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Atul S/O Istari Makhare Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai and Others

Sunita D/O Sudhakar Demapure Vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Bharat S/O Vishwanath Pagade Vs the Chairman, District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur and Another

Bharti D/O Vinayak Uikey and Others Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Chief Secretary, School of Education Dept. of Sport, Mumbai and Ors.

M/S. PNB Housing Finance Limited, Thr. Authorized Officer, New Delhi and Another Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others