Disposed¶24

Sindhutai Madhukar Upase and Others v. Western Coal Fields Limited (Wcl), Thr. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Nagpur and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2026WP/2184/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; widowed daughter-in-law; Western Coal Fields Limited; death of petitioner during pendency; medically unfit; reconsideration in view of subsequent events; eight-week direction to reconsider; communication of decision within two weeks; liberty to file fresh petition; Nagpur Bench; WRIT PETITION NO. 2184 OF 2025; disposed 24-04-2026; Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode JJ.; advocates S. O. Ahmed (petitioners) and Pushkar Ghare (respondents).

What did the court decide?

Respondents to reconsider the petitioners' application for compassionate appointment within eight weeks and communicate the decision to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 within two weeks of the date of decision; liberty to file a fresh petition if occasion arises. ¶24

Sindhutai Madhukar Upase and Others vs Western Coal Fields Limited (Wcl), Thr. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Nagpur and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner No. 3, the widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased employee Madhukar Upase, is entitled to compassionate appointment with the respondents. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

As per the respondents' policy, a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to compassionate appointment.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Following the death of petitioner No. 2 during the pendency of the petition, petitioner No. 3's claim is to be considered as that of the widow of the son of petitioner No. 1.

¶15

Key takeaways

The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioners' application/prayer for compassionate appointment within a period of eight weeks in view of the subsequent events.ratio¶21
The decision taken on reconsideration shall be communicated to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 within two weeks from the date of decision.ratio¶22
Liberty is granted to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 to file a fresh petition if such occasion arises.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Kilor and Wakode JJ.: Writ petition by Sindhutai Madhukar Upase (widow of deceased employee Madhukar Upase) and others sought compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 3, the widowed daughter-in-law, originally on the ground that her husband (petitioner No. 2) had been declared medically unfit. During the pendency of the petition petitioner No. 2 died on 08/12/2025 and leave was granted to delete his name. Noting that the respondents' (Western Coal Fields Limited) policy entitles a widowed daughter-in-law to compassionate appointment, and upon learned counsel for the respondents stating that the application would be reconsidered in view of the subsequent events, the Court directed the respondents to reconsider the application within eight weeks, to communicate the decision to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 within two weeks of the decision, and granted liberty to file a fresh petition if occasion arises. Writ petition disposed of (24-04-2026).

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6405-DB

¶2

933.WP.2184.2025.odt

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2184 OF 2025

¶6

Sindhutai Madhukar Upase and others

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

Western Coal Fields Limited and others

¶9

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

¶10

Mr S. O. Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner/s Mr Pushkar Ghare, Advocate for respondents

¶11

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 24th APRIL, 2026 .

¶12

Leave to delete the name of petitioner No. 2 is

¶13

granted.

¶14

By filing this petition, the petitioners are seeking compassionate appointment in favour of petitioner No. 3, who is the wife of petitioner No.2 and daughter-in-law of deceased Madhukar Upase and petitioner No.1. Although Petitioner No. 2 was alive the request has been made in favour of Petitioner No. 3, on the ground that Petitioner No. 2 was incapacitated because of declaration as medically unfit.

¶15

However, during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner No.2 died on 08/12/2025. Now the petitioner No.3’s claim can be considered as a widow of son of the petitioner No.1.

¶16

As per the policy of the respondents, widowed daughter-in-law is entitled for such compassionate appointment.

¶17

¶18

933.WP.2184.2025.odt

¶19

Thus, considering the policy, Mr Pushkar Ghare learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that they will reconsider the application of the petitioner No.3 for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the subsequent events.

¶20

Accordingly, we pass the following order-

¶21

i] The respondents are directed to reconsider the application/prayer of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today in view of subsequent events.

¶22

ii] The decision taken thereupon shall be communicated to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 within a period of two weeks from the date of decision.

¶23

iii] Liberty is granted to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 to file a fresh, if such occasion arises.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

[RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶26

Namrata

¶27

Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/04/2026 19:26:52

Sindhutai Madhukar Upase and Others v. Western Coal Fields Limited (Wcl), Thr. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Nagpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhutai Madhukar Upase and Others v. Western Coal Fields Limited (Wcl), Thr. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Nagpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey vs Coal India Limited (Cil), Thr. Chairman, Cum Appellate Authority, Kolkata and Another

Smt. Kanchanmala Wd/O Raju Joshi and Ors. vs the Collector, Nagpur and Ors.

Shri Guru Nagoraoji Paikuji Mathure Sewashram Trust, Waki, Thr. Secretary, Ashok H. Palandurkar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Revenue Minister, Mumbai and Another

Shri. Amol Purushottam Nawade vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy., Department of Co-Operation, Mumbai and Ors.

Sudhir S/O Vasant Somalwar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Nazul Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Rubina Parvez D/O Jamshid Khan and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Devp. Mumbai and Ors.