Dismissed¶17

Rohit S/O Nitin Girhe v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC14 Aug 2025WP/6920/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate ground appointment in place of husband; undertaking to maintain dependent members of family; alleged breach of undertaking by non-maintenance; son seeking revocation of mother's appointment; no inquiry by employer; Court's interaction with parties fulfilling purpose of inquiry; dependency of major son aged 21; Family Court, Akola case E-63/2018; Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017; State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:8054-DB; result: writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

After interacting with the petitioner and respondent no.3, the Court reached the conclusion that the allegation that respondent no.3 is not maintaining the petitioner is found to be incorrect. ¶15

Rohit S/O Nitin Girhe Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:8054-DB

¶2

1010-WP-6920-2023.odt 1

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6920 OF 2023

¶5

Rohit Nitin Girbe

¶6

vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

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

¶9

Mr. A. P. Bhuibhar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. M. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 1. Mr. U. J. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. S. S. Shingane, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶10

CORAM :- ANIL S. KILOR and MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 14^th AUGUST, 2025

¶11

P. C.

¶12

T he petitioner, who is the son of the respondent no.3, is seeking revocation of the appointment of his mother i.e. respondent no.3 made on compassionate ground in place of her husband on the ground that she is not maintaining him and thereby she violated the undertaking given by her while accepting such appointment.

¶13

It is argued that the undertaking was to maintain dependent members of the family, and since the petitioner is dependent, the respondent no.3 is duty bound to maintain him. It is argued that as the respondent no.3 failed to maintain the petitioner, she has violated the undertaking given by her and therefore the employer ought to have conducted an inquiry and after reaching to the conclusion or satisfaction that she has violated the undertaking, necessary action would have taken by revoking the appointment of the respondent no.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment and order of the learned Family Court, Akola, in case no. E- 63/2018 and the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 in support of his contentions.

¶14

1010-WP-6920-2023.odt 2

¶15

It is evident that no such enquiry was conducted by the employer; however, this Court (Coram: Nitin W. Sambre and Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.) interacted with the petitioner and the respondent no.3. After the interaction, this Court had reached to the conclusion that the allegation that the respondent no.3 is not maintaining the petitioner is found to be incorrect.

¶16

In that view of the matter, even if the inquiry as sought by the petitioner not conducted, the purpose of holding such an inquiry is fulfilled by the interaction conducted by this Court.

¶17

In that view of the matter since the ground raised by the petitioner does not survive and further finding that the petitioner is now major, i.e. 21 years of age, he cannot be considered as dependent on the respondent no.3, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶19

Andurkar.

Rohit S/O Nitin Girhe v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit S/O Nitin Girhe v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meena W/O Shivdas Khandait and Others vs State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Bhandara and Others

Paramhans Ramsumarbaba Co-Op. Housing So., Ngapur Thr. Secy., Akshay a. Tidke Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Urban Development, Mumbai and Ors.

Namrata D/O Arvind Kasar Vs the Collector, Wardha and Others

Nilkanth S/O Tulsiram Kulsange Vs Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal through Chief Executive Officer and Another

Vijay Sambshiv Ainchwar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Sanjay Krushnkumar Pande and Others Vs Director of Education, Directorate of Primary Education, Pune and Ors.