Aasha Ramkrushna Muneshwar Vs Executive Engineer, O and M Circle, Msetcl, Gondia and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Aasha Ramkrushna Muneshwar Vs Executive Engineer, O and M Circle, Msetcl, Gondia and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed and disposed of with direction that respondent nos. 1 and 2 consider the petitioner's compassionate-appointment application in terms of the policy and shall not insist on the NOC of the in-laws.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent nos. 1 and 2 were justified in insisting on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the deceased's parents (the petitioner's in-laws) while considering the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. +1 more

Court's answer

Given the age of the father-in-law (69 years) and the mother-in-law (60 years), under the policy of compassionate appointment they will not be eligible to receive any employment.

Ratio / Principle

The insistence of respondent nos. 1 and 2 on a NOC from the petitioner's in-laws would not be justified.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner's application satisfies the other requirements of the policy, respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall consider it in terms of the policy and shall not insist on the NOC of the in-laws.ratio¶21
There is no necessity to issue notices to respondent nos. 3 and 4, since considering their ages (60 and 69 years respectively) they would not have any claim on compassionate appointment.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — Demand of No Objection Certificate (NOC) — Petitioner claimed appointment on compassionate ground on account of demise of her husband, an employee of respondent nos. 1 and 2 (MSEDCL); respondents demanded NOC from the deceased's parents (petitioner's in-laws) by communication dated 18/01/2024 — Father-in-law aged 69 years and mother-in-law aged 60 years; under the compassionate appointment policy they will not be eligible to receive any employment — Hence insistence on NOC from the in-laws held not justified — Respondent nos. 1 and 2 directed that if the application satisfies the other requirements of the policy, it shall be considered in terms of the policy without insisting on the in-laws' NOC — Notices to respondent nos. 3 and 4 dispensed with as unnecessary, they having no claim on compassionate appointment given their ages — Petition heard finally by consent of parties and allowed/disposed of (Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench; Coram: Smt. M.S. Jawalkar and Pravin S. Patil, JJ.; 11 July 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:BHC-NAG:6705-DB).

2025:BHC-NAG:6705-DB

1 916) WP 5713-2024.odt

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 5713 OF 2024

AASHA RAMKRUSHNA MUNESHWAR

...Vs...

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O AND M DN., MSEDCL, DEORI, DIST. GONDIA AND OTHERS

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

Shri H.N.Sangode, Advocate with Shri B.C.Chandrakapure, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Rushikesh Mahajan h/f. Shri A.M.Chandekar, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

Shri A.D.Mohgaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

CORAM: SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR AND

PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : 11^th JULY, 2025.

Shri Rushikesh Mahajan, the learned counsel h/f. Shri A.M.Chandekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 – Executive Engineer submits that, Shri A.M.Chandekar, learned counsel seeks discharge from the matter as Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel is appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2. As such, the earlier counsel Shri A.M.Chandekar for respondent no. 1 is hereby discharged.

Heard Shri B.C. Chandrakapure, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.D.Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Though respondent nos. 3 and 4 are made parties to the petition, notices were not issued to them. In our considered opinion, there is no necessity to issue notices to respondent nos. 3 and 4. Considering their age

2 916) WP 5713-2024.odt

as 60 years and 69 years respectively, they would not have any claim on compassionate appointment.

The petition is heard finally by the consent of the parties.

The petition pertains to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of demise of her husband Ramkrishna Muneshwar who was working with respondent nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand of NOC by respondent nos. 1 and 2 by communication dated 18/01/2024. The NOC was demanded from the parents of the deceased. The age of the father-in-law is 69 years and that of the mother-in-law is 60 years and therefore, under the policy of compassionate appointment, they will not be eligible to receive any employment. In that view of the matter, the insistence of respondent nos. 1 and 2 for NOC from the in-laws would not be justified. Therefore, if the application of the petitioner satisfies the other requirements of the policy, the same shall be considered by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the policy and shall not insist on NOC of in-laws. The petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR, J.)

B.T.Khapekar