Bombay High Court
Shabana Begam Shekh Ahamad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 3 May, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
(1) W.P. No. 2259 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 2259 of 2016
District : Nanded
Shabana Begam Shekh Ahamad,
Age : 26 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. Vajegaon, Nanded,
Taluka & District : Nanded. .. Petitioner.
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,ig
through the Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Hutatma Rajguru Chouk,
Madam Kama Road,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Division Nanded,
District : Nanded. .. Respondents.
............
Mr. S.N. Janakwade, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asst. Government Pleader, for
respondent no.1.
Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
............
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 3RD MAY 2016
(2) W.P. No. 2259 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.) :
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard
finally.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned
communication dated 30th December 2015, addressed by
respondent no.2, to the petitioner, the petitioner
has filed this petition.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner invited our attention to the Government
Resolution dated 26th February 2013, issued by the
General Administration Department of the Government
of Maharashtra and submits that the married daughter
is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.
Keeping in view the said policy, the petitioner
applied for the appointment on compassionate ground,
on 12th July 2014. It is submitted that the
petitioner's mother died on 27th August 2013 and
application was filed well within limitation on 12th
July 2014. It is submitted that the respondents have
rejected the application adopting hypertechnical view
that the policy of the State Government reflected in
afore mentioned Government Resolution so as to
provide employment to the married daughter of the
deceased employee has been adopted on 24.11.2014 and
the application filed by the petitioner was prior to
(3) W.P. No. 2259 of 2016
adopting such policy.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent
no.2, relying upon the impugned communication,
submits that the petitioner filed the application on
12th July 2014 and the respondent no.2 has adopted
the Government policy by issuing notification dated
24.11.2014. He has, therefore, urged that the
petition deserves no consideration.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing
for the respondents. With their able assistance,
perused the pleadings in the petition and annexures
thereto, in particular, document at Exhibit "F" (Page
24) with the compilation of the Writ Petition.
7. It appears that though the respondent no.2
has adopted the State Government policy to give
appointment to the married daughter of the deceased
employee on 24th November 2014, however, same was to
be given effect with effect from 1st January 2014.
Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner on
12th July 2014 ought to have been favourably
considered by respondent no.2 on merits instead of
rejecting the same on the grounds which are stated in
the impugned communication.
8. In the result, the petition is partly
allowed.
(4) W.P. No. 2259 of 2016
(a) The impugned communication dated 30.12.2015
issued by respondent no.2 to the petitioner is
quashed and set aside.
(b) The respondents are directed to consider the
application of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground, dated 12th July 2014, on its
own merits and without raising the grounds which are
raised in the impugned communication. The
petitioner's application shall be considered by the
respondents from the date of filing such application.
If the respondents find petitioner's claim
acceptable, keeping in view the relevant policy, we
direct the respondents to include the name of the
petitioner in the list of the candidates who have
applied for appointment on compassionate ground, as
expeditiously as possible, however, within six weeks
from today.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Parties to act upon an authenticated /
certified copy of this judgment.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL) (S.S. SHINDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
puranik / WP2259.16
