Partly allowed

Shubhangi Manikrao @ Dipak Suryawanshi v. State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secretary, Maha. State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC26 Mar 2024WP/1291/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate employment on her father's death; application rejected because Corporation records showed the father's name as Manikrao while petitioner claimed he was also known as Dipak. Court quashed the rejection and directed the Divisional Controller to reconsider with documents after verification.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shubhangi Manikrao @ Dipak Suryawanshi Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:3703-DB

¶2

1 WP-1291-2022.odt

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No.1291 of 2022

¶5

[Kul Shubhangi Manikrao @ Dipak Suryawanshi VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and
others]

¶6

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

¶7

Shri Pravin Palhade, Counsel for Petitioner.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Shri S.V. Deshmukh, Counsel for Respondent No.3.

¶8

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶9

DATE: 26th MARCH , 2024

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

1.The father of the petitioner was working as a Conductor, on whose place
the petitioner sought compassionate appointment, which prayer was rejected by
the respondent No.3-Divisional Controller by the communication
dated 26-2-2018. Hence, this petition.

¶12

2.After heaving heard the respective counsel for some time, it can be borne
out of the record that the only reason furnished by the petitioner for rejecting
her application moved on 20-12-2017 for grant of employment is the difference
in the name of the father of the petitioner. In the record of the respondent-
Corporation, the name of the father of the petitioner is recorded as
Manikrao S/o Shaligram Suryawanshi, whereas the petitioner has produced the
document which demonstrates the name of her father as Dipak. That being so,
the respondent-Corporation has passed the impugned order.

¶13

3. The petitioner has tried to justify her claim that the name of her father even if in the record is mentioned as Manikrao S/o Shaligram Suryawanshi, the

¶14

2 WP-1291-2022.odt

¶15

fact remains that Dipak and Manikrao are one and the same person and the
same can be demonstrated from the record.

¶16

4.In the aforesaid background, we are of the view that the petitioner can be
given an opportunity to appear before the respondent No.3-Divisional Controller
along with all documents, including annexures to the petition and the pleadings
therein, and based on the same, the Divisional Controller can pass a reasoned
order afresh in the matter. It is also to be observed that it shall be open for the
Divisional Controller to conduct a discreet enquiry in the matter qua the
verification of the name of the father of the petitioner, namely Manikrao and
Dipak, who are claimed to be one and the same person.

¶17

5.That being so, the petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 26-2-2018 passed by the respondent No.3-Divisional Controller is hereby
quashed and set aside.

¶18

6.We permit the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.3- Divisional
Controller on5-4-2024with all relevant documentary evidence so as to
demonstrate that Manikrao and Dipak are one and the same person,
who happened to be the father of the petitioner.

¶19

7.We expect the respondent No.3-Divisional Controller to pass an
appropriate order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner before him.

¶20

8. The petition stands partly allowed. No costs.

¶21

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶22

 (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶23

LANJEWAR

Shubhangi Manikrao @ Dipak Suryawanshi v. State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secretary, Maha. State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shubhangi Manikrao @ Dipak Suryawanshi v. State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secretary, Maha. State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj S/O Wamanrao Sonparote Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee through Its Member Secretary and Another

Sandesh Sheshrao Jadhav and Another Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary Social Welfare Development, Mumbai and Others

Javed Rahimuddin Khan Pathan Vs District Scrutiny Caste Verification Committee, through Its President, Gondia and 1

Shri Durgaiya Pocham Sullewar S/O Late Pocham Sullewar and Another vs Aruna W/O Durgaiyya Sullewar and Another

Aniket S/O Pradeep Kothikar Vs the Managing Director/President M.S.E.D.C.L., Mumbai and Others

Vishnupanth S/O Onkarsa Naghate Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Public Works, Dept. Mumbai and Others