Allowed¶12

Savita Wd/O Kailash Shirbhate and Another v. the State of Maharashtra , Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC14 Jan 2025WP/4041/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment Maharashtra; waitlist substitution of daughter in place of widow; age-45 eligibility bar; majority-before-45 technicality; death of Kailash Shribhate 25.11.2015; compassionate appointment application 27.11.2015; substitution request 22.1.2020; widow attained 45 on 25.4.2020; rejection communication 27.4.2021 quashed; Full Bench precedent Kalpana wd/o Vdilas Taram v. State of Maharashtra, 2024(4) Mh.L.J. 312; Nagpur Bench; Writ Petition No. 4041 of 2022; advocates S.M. Vaishnav, A.S. Fulzele (Addl.GP), U.J. Deshpande.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: impugned communication dated 27.4.2021 quashed, and respondent No. 2 directed to include petitioner No. 2's name in the waiting list for grant of compassionate appointment. ¶12

Savita Wd/O Kailash Shirbhate and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra , Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: impugned communication dated 27.4.2021 quashed, and respondent No. 2 directed to include petitioner No. 2's name in the waiting list for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner No. 2 (the daughter) can be substituted in the waitlist for compassionate appointment in place of petitioner No. 1 (the widow), notwithstanding that she had not completed majority before the widow attained 45 years.

¶10

Court's answer

The fact that petitioner No. 2 had not completed majority before the widow (petitioner No. 1) attained 45 years is merely a technicality which does not go to the root of the matter; considering the purpose of compassionate appointment, it cannot be a criterion to debar petitioner No. 2 from inclusion in the waitlist, particularly as petitioner No. 2 has since attained majority.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The matter stands covered by the learned Full Bench judgment in Kalpana wd/o Vdilas Taram and another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others, 2024(4) Mh.L.J. 312; in view thereof the petition is allowed by quashing the impugned communication dated 27.4.2021 and directing respondent No. 2 to include petitioner No. 2 in the waiting list for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 4041 of 2022, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, decided 14-01-2025 (Avinash G. Gharote & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.) - Compassionate appointment (Maharashtra): substitution of a deceased employee's daughter in the waitlist in place of his widow. Kailash Shribhate died on 25.11.2015; the widow (petitioner No. 1) applied for compassionate appointment on 27.11.2015; the request to substitute the daughter (petitioner No. 2) was filed on 22.1.2020, before the widow attained 45 years on 25.4.2020; the request was rejected because the daughter had not completed majority before the widow crossed 45. Held: that circumstance is 'merely a technicality which does not go to the root of the matter' and, considering the purpose of compassionate appointment, cannot debar petitioner No. 2 from the waitlist, specifically as petitioner No. 2 has since attained majority; the matter is covered by the learned Full Bench judgment in Kalpana wd/o Vdilas Taram and another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others, 2024(4) Mh.L.J. 312. Petition allowed; impugned communication dated 27.4.2021 quashed; respondent No. 2 directed to include petitioner No. 2 in the waiting list for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶1

1 3wp4041.2022..odt

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4041 OF 2022

¶4

(Savita wd/o Kailash Shirbhate and ors Vs. State of Maharashtra and another)

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Addl.GP for respondent No.1/state. Mr. U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATED : 14-01-2025

¶9

Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, the learned Counsel appears for petitioners on account of which learned Counsel Mr. Kalwaghe is discharged.

¶10

The only question is regarding the substitution of the name of the petitioner no. 2 in the waitlist for compassionate appointment in place of the petitioner No. 1, who is the widow of Mr. Kailash Shribhate, who passed on 25.11.2015, application for compassionate appointment having been made on 27.11.2015 and the widow having attained the age of 45 years on 25.4.2020, prior to which, the application for substituting the name of the daughter was filed on 22.1.2020. The rejection is based upon a plea that before the widow attained 45 years, the daughter did not complete her majority. That is merely a technicality which does not go to the root of the matter, and considering the purpose for grant of compassionate appointment, cannot be a criteria to debar the petitioner no. 2 from being included in the waitlist, specifically so when he has already now attained majority. The matter is also covered by the judgment of the learned Full Bench in

¶11

2 3wp4041.2022..odt

¶12

Kalpana wd/o Vdilas Taram and another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others, 2024(4) Mh.L.J. 312, in view of which, the petition is allowed by quashing impugned communication dated 27.4.2021 and directing respondent No. 2 to include the name of the petitioner No. 2 in the waiting list for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶13

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶14

Belkhede

Savita Wd/O Kailash Shirbhate and Another v. the State of Maharashtra , Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Wd/O Kailash Shirbhate and Another v. the State of Maharashtra , Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asian One Pvt. Limited, Singapore, Thr. Auth. Representative, Santosh Raja Vs the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur and Others

Seema W/O. Ramdas Chawre vs University Grants Commission, Ministry of Human Resource Dept., New Delhi Thr. Undr Secy. and Anr.

Vasant Shridhar Sangam and Another vs the Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati Thr. Its Commissioner

Ashish S/O Sukhdeo Kamble Vs the Municipal Council Tumsar, through Chief Officer

Jolly v. Paul vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Energy, Mumbai and Others

Ravindra Purushottam Deshmukh and Another Vs State Bank of India Thr. Authorized Officer, Sarb, and Others