Dismissed¶¶18

Tushar Vilasrao Dandekar v. State of Maha., Thr Principal Secy., General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jun 2025WP/2900/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment refused to grandson of employee dead since 28-05-1984; Maharashtra Government scheme does not contemplate grandson's appointment; claim raised after more than forty years achieves no scheme purpose; WRIT PETITION NO. 2900 OF 2025, Nagpur Bench, decided 19-06-2025; Tushar Vilasrao Dandekar v. State of Maharashtra; Ms. Deepali S. Patil (appointed) for petitioner; Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for respondents; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Compassionate appointment of the grandson of the deceased employee is not contemplated under the scheme floated by the State Government. ¶¶16

Tushar Vilasrao Dandekar vs State of Maha., Thr Principal Secy., General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:5687-DB

¶2

108.WP.2900.2025.odt 1/2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2900 OF 2025

¶5

Tushar Vilasrao Dandekar

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary & Anr.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,____________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶9

and Registrar's Orders.

¶10

Ms. Deepali S. Patil, Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner. Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶11

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE

¶12

AND SACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 19th JUNE, 2025.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the original employee viz. Madhukar Krishnaraoji Dandekar died on 28 May, 1984. Thereafter, an application for compassionate appointment was presented on behalf of the family members of the deceased in 2014 and an attempt is made to include the name of the present petitioner for compassionate appointment.

¶16

We have considered the entire conspectus of the matter. After the death of Madhukar Krishnaraoji Dandekar in the year 1984, a request was made to consider the candidature of Laxmikant Madhukar Dhandekar, who is the son of the deceased, and now the present petitioner, who is the grandson of the deceased, is seeking compassionate appointment. It does not contemplate under the scheme floated by the State Government. No steps were taken in relation to appointment of Laxmikant Madhukar Dhandekar.

¶17

108.WP.2900.2025.odt 2/2

¶18

In our considered opinion, no case is made out to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment since it is asserted after more than forty years and no purpose as contemplated under the scheme would be achieved. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed.

¶19

Fees be quantified and paid to the counsel appointed to represent the petitioner as per Rules.

¶20

( SACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DESHMUKH, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶21

Vijaykumar

¶22

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/06/2025 15:39:41

Tushar Vilasrao Dandekar v. State of Maha., Thr Principal Secy., General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Vilasrao Dandekar v. State of Maha., Thr Principal Secy., General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shadir Md. Sheikh Rahim Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Labour and Emplyment, Mumbai and Ors.

Priyanka Prakash Rathod and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Others

Umakant S/O Dnyaneshwar Pise Vs Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer and Others

Santosh Kisanrao Rane Vs the District Maleria Officer, Amravati

Samir S/O Sadik Kame and Another Vs the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others

Vandana W/O Vilas Mahile Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Education Directorate (Higher Education), Pune and Another