Dismissed¶109

Amol Bhagwandas Bairagi v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2025WP/7315/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging rejection of application for compassionate appointment with Nashik Municipal Corporation made nine years after employee's death in harness; delay attributed to succession dispute between two wives settled only in December 2023; one-year limit under Clause 10(A) of Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 upheld; reliance on State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari (2025) 5 SCC 712; laches doctrine discussed via Moon Mills, Nandlal Jaiswal, Jagdish Lal, Pan Singh, Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future; compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. ¶71

Amol Bhagwandas Bairagi vs the State of… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶109

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.2 was justified in rejecting the applications / representations filed by the Petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis, on the ground of the same being beyond limitation?

¶50

Court's answer

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future; compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

¶71

Ratio / Principle

Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and lose its significance, which must weigh with the authorities in determining whether a case for grant of compassionate appointment has been made out.

¶79

Key takeaways

A mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time; even if a court or tribunal directs consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance, it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action.ratio¶97
On the face of the rejection order dated 30.01.2023, the subsequent representations were not tenable; there is no justification much less any legally acceptable reasons put forth by the Petitioner for the belated filing of the Application seeking compassionate appointment.ratio¶103

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., for Ravindra V. Ghuge and self), Writ Petition No. 7315 of 2025, decided 03.12.2025 — Compassionate appointment — Delay — Petitioner's father, a driver with Nashik Municipal Corporation, died in harness on 30.05.2005; petitioner applied for compassionate appointment only on 02.04.2014, nine years after the death, citing pendency of matrimonial/succession disputes between his mother Bharati and his father's second wife Sunita (resolved only on 15.12.2023 in Second Appeal No. 322 of 2014). Respondent No.2 rejected the application on 30.01.2023 as beyond the one-year period prescribed by Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 (Clause 10(A)); subsequent representations were rejected on 04.12.2024. The Court held that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment nor a vested right, that the sense of immediacy ceases where long delay occurs, that mere submission of representations does not arrest time or create a fresh cause of action, and that averments regarding the family's financial crisis were missing from the petition. Relying on State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712, the Court found no illegality in the rejection orders and dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7315 OF 2025

¶5

Amol Bhagwandas Bairagi Age : 34 Years, Occ. Nil, R/o. House No. 237, Mumbai-Agra Road, Village – Vilholi, Tal & Dist – Nashik … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra

¶8

through Urban Development Department

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik, Dist. Nashik. … Respondents

¶10

¶11

Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND

¶14

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶15

RESERVED ON : 24^th NOVEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 03^rd DECEMBER, 2025

¶16

JUDGMENT : (Per : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶17

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is

¶18

heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

¶19

¶20

Gayatri Shimpi

¶21

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶22

Petitioner by the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails two orders; firstly, order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the Petitioner’s Application dated 02.04.2014 for his appointment on compassionate ground and the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting the subsequent representations dated 02.09.2024, 25.09.2024, 12.11.2024 and 23.11.2024, seeking compassionate appointment.

¶23

Material facts in this petition are that the Petitioner’s father Bhagwandas Madandas Bairagi (Bhagwandas) was working as a driver in the Motor Repairing Department of the Nashik Municipal Corporation, at Nashik since 21.07.2003. Bhagwandas suffered a heart attack and passed away on 30.05.2005. Bhagwandas left behind his wife Smt. Bharati Bhagwandas Bairagi (Bharati), two daughters (viz. Bhavana & Puja) and 2 sons (viz. Petitioner & Mayur). Petitioner’s mother made an Application dated 23.06.2005 to the Respondent No. 2 for compensation and other benefits after the demise of Bhagwandas.

¶24

Bhagwandas had a second wife by name Sunita, from whom Bhagwandas had three children. Sunita had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 277 of 2005 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior

¶25

¶26

Gayatri Shimpi

¶27

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶28

Division, Nashik seeking a declaration, that Sunita be declared as the legally married wife of Bhagwandas and that Bharati and her family members have no relation with Bhagwandas.

¶29

Bharati and her family members (which includes the Petitioner) filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 141 of 2005 before the Civil Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956 for a Succession Certificate.

¶30

By a common Judgment dated 16.08.2007, Regular Civil Suit No.277 of 2005 was dismissed, whereas the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 141 of 2005 filed by Bharati was allowed and consequently Succession Certificate was ordered to be issued in the name of Bharati and her family members.

¶31

Sunita questioned the said common Judgment passed in Regular Civil Suit No.277 of 2005, by filling Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2007, before the District Court, Nashik. Vide Judgment dated 14.08.2013, the District Court partly allowed the Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2007, by modifying the common Judgment dated 16.08.2007, thereby declaring children of Sunita to be entitled to equal rights in the property

¶32

¶33

Gayatri Shimpi

¶34

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶35

of Bhagwandas, consequently Succession Certificate was ordered to be issued in the in name of Sunita’s children alongwith Bharati and her family members.

¶36

Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 14.08.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2007, Sunita filed Second Appeal No. 322 of 2014 before this Court. During the pendency of the said appeal Second Appeal, Sunita and Bharati vide Minutes of Order dated 12.07.2017, amicably resolved to share the amounts of gratuity and other service benefits payable to Bhagwandas in eight (8) equal shares (1/8th share) in favour of the three (3) children of Sunita and four (4) children of Bharati. Question of who being the legally wedded wife of Bhagwandas and who being entitled to the balance 1/8th share was left open to be decided in the said Second appeal on merits.

¶37

Vide Judgment dated 15.12.2023, Second Appeal No. 322 of 2014 was disposed by holding Bharati as the legally wedded wife of Bhagwandas, thus being entitled to the remaining 1/8th share of the amount of pension payable lying in the pension account of Bhagwandas.

¶38

Petitioner on 02.04.2014 had filed Application before Respondent No.2 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Said Gayatri Shimpi 4

¶39

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶40

Application was rejected by the Respondent No.2 on 30.01.2023, holding the same being beyond the period of one year, as prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017.

¶41

Petitioner vide his representations dated 02.09.2024, 25.09.2024, 12.11.2024 and 23.11.2024, repeated his request to the Respondent No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶42

By order dated 04.12.2024 Respondent No.2 rejected the said representations, by reiterating the request being beyond the period of one year.

¶43

Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner at the time of death of Bhagwandas was a minor. He submits that in view of the dispute between his mother (Bharati) and the second wife (Sunita), Petitioner could not file an Application seeking compassionate appointment. He submits that the said dispute between Bharati and Sunita was settled on 15.12.2023 in Second Appeal No. 322 of 2014. He therefore submits that the Application dated 02.04.2014 as well as the subsequent representations filed by the Petitioner were required to be considered and the delay in

¶44

¶45

Gayatri Shimpi

¶46

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶47

filing the Application is required to be condoned. He submits that Respondent No.2 has erroneously rejected the applications / representations filed by the Petitioner seeking compassionate appointment.

¶48

Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 has opposed the Petition. She has placed on record the Government

¶49

Resolution dated 21.09.2017 issued by the General Administration Department of the Government of Maharashtra. She places reliance on Clause 10 (A) of the said resolution to support the rejection orders.

¶50

From the rival contentions of the parties the question that falls for our consideration is whether Respondent No.2 was justified in rejecting the applications / representations filed by the Petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis, on the ground of the same being beyond limitation?

¶51

A perusal of the policy for compassionate appointment, as framed by the Respondent State, vide Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 indicates the objective behind the grant of compassionate appointment, is to enable the family members of the deceased employee

¶52

¶53

Gayatri Shimpi

¶54

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶55

to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve them from financial destitution due to the untimely death of their bread winner.

¶56

Clause 10(A), Clause 10(B) and Clause, 10(C) of AnnexureA to the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 are transcribed herein below:- (१०) अर्ज�करण्यासाठीमुदतः-

¶57

(अ) अनुकंपानिनयुक्तीसाठीनिदवंगतशासकीयकम�चाऱ्यांच्याकुटुंबातील पात्र नातेवाईकाने शासकीय अधि&कारी/कम�चारी निदवंगतझाल्याच्या निदनांकापासूनएकवर्ष ा �च्यामुदतीतसंबं&ीतनिनयुक्तीप्राधि&काऱ्याकडेनिवनि.त नमुन्यातपरिरपूर्ण�अर्ज�सादरकरर्णेआवश्यकआ.े. (शासननिनर्ण�य, २२/८/ २००५वशासनपरिरपत्रक, निद. ०५.०२.२०१०)

¶58

(आ) सेवेतअसतानानिदवंगतझालेल्याकम�चाऱ्यांच्याकुटुंबातीलअज्ञान वारासदाराच्याबाबतीतएकानेसज्ञानम्.र्णर्जे१८वर्ष ा �चाझाल्यावरएक वर्ष ा �च्याआतअनुकंपानिनयुक्तीसाठीपरिरपूर्ण�अर्ज�सादरकरर्णेआवश्यक आ.े.

¶59

शासननिनय�य, ११.९.१९९६वशासनपरिरपत्रक, निद.०५.०२.२०१०)

¶60

(इ) पात्रवारसदारासनिवनि.त१वर्ष ा �च्यामुदतीनंतर२वर्षा�इतक्या कालाव&ीपय=त (मृत्यूच्यानिदनांकापासून३वर्ष ा �पय=त) तसेचनिदवंगत शासकीयकम�चाऱ्यांच्याअज्ञानवारसदाराच्याबाबतीततोउमेदवारसज्ञान झाल्यानंतरनिवनि.त१वर्ष ा �च्यामुदतीनंतर२वर्ष ा �पय=त (सज्ञानझाल्यानंतर ३वर्ष ा �पय=त) अर्ज�सादरकरण्यासनिवलंबझाल्यासअसानिवलंबक्षमानिपत करण्याचेअधि&कारसंबं&ीतमंत्रालयीनप्रशासकीयनिवभागाच्यानिवभाग प्रमुखांनादेण्यातयेतआ.ेत."

¶61

Case of the Petitioner as set out in the petition is that

¶62

Petitioner was under an impression of his mother having filed an

¶63

Application seeking appointment on compassionate ground after the Gayatri Shimpi 7

¶64

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶65

death of his father. Thus, it is not the case of the Petitioner of the Petitioner not being aware of his entitlement to get compassionate appointment in terms of the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017. Paragraph No. 15G of the memo of petition, is extracted herein below:-

¶66

“G. That the Petitioner was under impression that his mother has already filed Application for getting service on compassionate ground after the death of his father.”

¶67

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors^1, after considering its earlier pronouncement, has laid down the following principles in paragraph Nos. 32 to 40, which reads as under:

¶68

32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:

¶69

32.1. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

¶70

32.2. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

¶71

32.3. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

¶72

32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately

1 (2025) 5 SCC 712

Gayatri Shimpi

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶77

to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.

¶78

32.5. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.

¶79

33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the breadearner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.

¶80

34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities' decision in the matter.

¶81

35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant

¶82

¶83

Gayatri Shimpi

¶84

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶85

authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 31] would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.

¶86

36. Laches or undue delay, the blameworthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd [Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, (1874) LR 5 PC 221] as under : (LR pp. 239-40)

¶87

“Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy.”

¶88

37. Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 117 : AIR 1967 SC 1450] . In the said case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶89

38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, 10

¶90

Gayatri Shimpi

¶91

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶92

(1986) 4 SCC 566] this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words : (SCC pp. 594-95, para 24)

¶93

24.… the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.

¶94

39. While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of

¶95

limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1550] ; NDMC v. Pan Singh [NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398] .

¶96

40. Further, simply because the respondent-writ petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-2006, it cannot be said that they diligently pursued the matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari [State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 32] , wherein the following observations were made : (SCC p. 184, para 19)

¶97

“19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.”

¶98

¶99

Records bear out that Petitioner is 34 years of age.

¶100

Application for compassionate appointment was made by the Petitioner Gayatri Shimpi 11

¶101

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶102

in the year 2014, after nine (9) years from the demise of Bhagwandas. Said application was not disposed till the year 2023. Petitioner did not approach this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus against the Respondent No.2 for consideration of his application 02.04.2014. Said Application was rejected on 30.01.2023. Petitioner without questioning the said rejection made representations dated 02.09.2024, 25.09.2024, 12.11.2024 and 23.11.2024 repeating his request for compassionate appointment. On the face of the rejection order dated 30.01.2023, the subsequent representations were not tenable. Said representations were rejected on 04.12.2024.

¶103

The object of compassionate appointment is to provide succor to the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 provides for time limit for making an Application by the family member of the deceased employee. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. Petitioner and his family members have received the gratuity and other pensionary benefits payable to the pension account of Bhagwandas. There is no justification much less any legally acceptable reasons put forth by the Petitioner for the belated filing of the Application seeking compassionate appointment. Averments as to whether the family is in

¶104

¶105

Gayatri Shimpi

¶106

38-wp-7315-2025 Judgment.odt

¶107

financial crisis, liabilities of the family, if any, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source are missing in the petition. Applying the law in the case of State of West Bengal ( supra ), no case for indulgence is made out by the Petitioner.

¶108

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the rejection orders made by the Respondent No.2, rejecting the requests made by the Petitioner for compassionate appointment, almost after 10 years from the demise of Bhagwandas.

¶109

Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs, consequently the Writ Petition is dismissed , with no order as to costs.

¶110

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶111

¶112

Gayatri Shimpi

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 04.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting the subsequent representations dated 02.09.2024, 25.09.2024, 12.11.2024 and 23.11.2024, seeking compassionate appointment; also order dated 30.01.2023 rejecting the Petitioner's Application dated 02.04.2014 for his appointment on compassionate ground¶22
Respondent No.2 (Deputy Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation) · 04.12.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's mother made an Application dated 23.06.2005 to Respondent No.2 for compensation and other benefits after the demise of Bhagwandas¶23
Prior proceeding
Sunita filed Regular Civil Suit No. 277 of 2005 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik seeking declaration that she be declared legally married wife of Bhagwandas¶24
Prior proceeding
Bharati and her family members filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 141 of 2005 before the Civil Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for Succession Certificate¶29
Prior proceeding
By common Judgment dated 16.08.2007, Regular Civil Suit No.277 of 2005 was dismissed and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 141 of 2005 was allowed with Succession Certificate ordered in favour of Bharati and her family members¶30
Prior proceeding
Sunita filed Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2007 before the District Court, Nashik; vide Judgment dated 14.08.2013 the District Court partly allowed it, declaring children of Sunita entitled to equal rights in property of Bhagwandas¶31
Prior proceeding
Sunita filed Second Appeal No. 322 of 2014 before this Court; during pendency Sunita and Bharati resolved via Minutes of Order dated 12.07.2017 to share gratuity and other service benefits in eight equal shares¶36
Prior proceeding
Vide Judgment dated 15.12.2023, Second Appeal No. 322 of 2014 was disposed holding Bharati as legally wedded wife of Bhagwandas, entitled to remaining 1/8th share of pension amount¶37
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed Application on 02.04.2014 before Respondent No.2 seeking appointment on compassionate ground; rejected on 30.01.2023 as beyond one year period prescribed in Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017¶40
Prior proceeding
Petitioner made representations dated 02.09.2024, 25.09.2024, 12.11.2024 and 23.11.2024 repeating request for compassionate appointment¶41

Amol Bhagwandas Bairagi v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Bhagwandas Bairagi v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Urban Development Dept and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

K Raheja Corp Real Estate Private Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Manoj Pardesi and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Dept. of Industries, Energy Labour and Mining and Anr.

Karunakaran Vadakkepat vs the Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Ors.

Dr. Prakash Tukaram Chaphekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Vishnu Bhagat and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Prasad Dinkar Patil vs the Chief Executive Officer Zp and Anr.