Disposed¶23

Viki Dnyaneshwar Ghatake v. Msedcl Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Feb 2026WP/7386/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; MSEDCL; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd.; NOC waiver; grandmother aged 78 years; representation dated 7.11.2024; Writ Petition No. 4674 of 2023 order dated 11.1.2024; parents-in-law/father-in-law/mother-in-law NOC; Chairman & Managing Director; service by Bailiff; ex parte hearing warning; last opportunity; interim directions; Bombay High Court; R.I. Chagla; Advait M. Sethna; Writ Petition No. 7386 of 2025; adjourned to 23.02.2026; High on Board.

What did the court decide?

No final relief granted; interim directions on service and a last opportunity to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appear; Writ Petition adjourned to 23.02.2026 under caption “High on Board”. ¶23

Viki Dnyaneshwar Ghatake vs Msedcl Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No final relief granted; interim directions on service and a last opportunity to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appear; Writ Petition adjourned to 23.02.2026 under caption “High on Board”.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - MSEDCL should be directed to consider the Petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment without insisting on the NOC of the Petitioner's grandmother (aged 78 years).

¶8

Court's answer

Tentative view, expressly deferred: the Court is inclined to direct Respondent No. 1 - MSEDCL to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 7.11.2024 and to grant waiver of the NOC from the Petitioner's grandmother (aged 78), taking the same view as in its order dated 11.1.2024 in W.P. No. 4674 of 2023; however, instead of passing such order, a last opportunity was given to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to remain present on the next date, leaving the point open.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Interim directions: the Petitioner shall once again attempt private service on Respondent No. 1 (Respondent No. 2 already served by court notice); an Affidavit of Service is to be filed before the next date; and if Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not appear on the next date, the Writ Petition shall be heard in their absence.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R.I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna, JJ.), interim order in Writ Petition No. 7386 of 2025 filed by Viki Dnyaneshwar Ghatake seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - MSEDCL to consider his candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds without insisting on the NOC of his grandmother, aged 78 years, whose NOC was demanded despite her representation dated 7.11.2024 remaining unconsidered. The Court noted its earlier order dated 11.1.2024 in Writ Petition No. 4674 of 2023, where insistence on NOC of the deceased's father-in-law (67 years) and mother-in-law (56 years) was held not justifiable under the compassionate appointment policy, and observed that the present case is analogous. The Court recorded its inclination to direct MSEDCL to decide the Petitioner's representation and grant waiver of the grandmother's NOC, but deferred passing any order, granting Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 a last opportunity to remain present on the next date. Interim directions were issued for fresh private service on Respondent No. 1 (Respondent No. 2, its Chairman & Managing Director, having been served by Bailiff), with an Affidavit of Service to be filed, and a warning that the petition would be heard in the absence of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 if they did not appear. Matter adjourned to 23rd February, 2026 under caption “High on Board”.

¶1

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 1 10-WP-7386-2025.doc2026.02.13 10:41:16 +0530

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7386 OF 2025

¶4

Viki Dnyaneshwar Ghatake. ...Petitioner. Versus MSEDCL, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. -----------------

¶5

Mr. Jenish D. Jain, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent/State.

¶6

CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED : 10^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶7

P.C.:-

¶8

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - MSEDCL to consider the candidature of the present Petitioner for appointment on the Compassionate Grounds on the basis of documents tendered by the present Petitioner, without insisting for the NOC from the grandmother of the present Petitioner.

¶9

This Court by order dated 18^th June, 2025 had issued notice to the Respondents, returnable on 17^th July, 2025. Learned AGP waived service of notice on behalf of Respondent No. 3. Private service on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was permitted.

¶10

1/3

¶11

Talwalkar

¶12

2 10-WP-7386-2025.doc

¶13

Mr. Jain, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner states that private service was attempted on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but could not be effected and envelop had been returned. The report of issuance of court notice shows that Respondent No. 2 has been duly served by Bailiff as per the Bailiff’s report. However, service of notice on Respondent No. 1 is awaited.

¶14

In view thereof, the Petitioner shall once again attempt to serve Respondent No. 1 by way of private service. Respondent No. 2 has been served by court notice. Considering that Respondent No. 2 is the Chairman & Managing Director of the Respondent No. 1, it is made clear that in the event, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not make appearance on the next date, the Writ Petition shall be heard in the absence of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶15

It is pertinent to note that this Court in Writ Petition No. 4674 of 2023 by order dated 11.1.2024 had considered that the Petitioner therein was aggrieved by demand of NOC from the parents of the deceased i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the Petitioner for Compassionate appointment. This Court had upon noting the age of the father-in-law of the Petitioner which was 67 years and age of the mother-in-law which was 56 years, held that under the policy of compassionate appointment, they

¶16

2/3

¶17

Talwalkar

¶18

3 10-WP-7386-2025.doc

¶19

will not be eligible to receive any employment. In that view of the matter, insistence of their NOC was not justifiable.

¶20

In the present case also, the Petitioner is seeking dispensation of NOC from grandmother of the present Petitioner who is aged 78 years. The Petitioner has made representation on 7.11.2024 to the Respondent No. 1 - MSEDCL. Representation has not been considered.

¶21

We are inclined to pass an order directing the Respondent No. 1 – MSEDCL to decide the representation of the Petitioner as well as grant waiver of NOC from grandmother of the Petitioner. However, instead of passing this order today, we give a last opportunity to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to remain present on the next date.

¶22

The Advocate of the Petitioner shall serve notice of this order on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and file Affidavit of Service prior to the next date.

¶23

Writ Petition shall be placed for further consideration on 23^rd February, 2026, under caption “High on Board”.

¶24

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]

¶25

3/3

¶26

Talwalkar

Viki Dnyaneshwar Ghatake v. Msedcl Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viki Dnyaneshwar Ghatake v. Msedcl Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Asha Dhondiram Shinde Alias Ashwini Subhash Chine vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways

Gopal Sunil Patole and Ors. vs the Thane District Central Co-Operative Bank and Ors.

Jeevika Jayesh Pawar Nee Dipti Ashok Taral vs Principal of Poddar Brio International School Cbse and Ors.

Rcf Karmachari Sena vs Union of India Ministry of Labour and Employment

G Bhanu Murthy vs President Terna Public Charitable Trust College of Engineering Campus Solapur and Ors.

Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Its Legal Department and Ors.