Kavita Subhash Bhalerao vs State Of Maha & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5547 Bom

                                       1       WP 6253 of 2004

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         Writ Petition No. 6253 of 2004


     *       Kavita Subhash Bhalerao,
             Age 30 years,
             Occupation : Nil,
             R/o C/o B.N. Kavare,
             Near M.I.D.C. Girad Road,
             Pachora, Taluka Pachora,
             District Jalgaon.                        ..    Petitioner.

                      Versus

     1)      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through its Secretary,
             Department of Power and Energy,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

     2)      The Chairman,
             Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
             Prakash Gad Bandra, Mumbai - 51

     3)      The Chief Engineer,
             M.S.E.B. Nasik Zone,
             Vidyut Bhavan, Nasik.

     4)      The Executive Engineer,
             M.S.E.B. Jalgaon, Vidyut Bhavan,
             Divisional Office Old M.I.D.C.
             area, Ajintha Road, Jalgaon.

     5)      The Executive Engineer,
             M.S.E.B. Near Railway Station,
             Girad Road, Pachora,
             Taluka Pachora,
             District Jalgaon.              .. Respondents.

                                      ----




::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:39:26 :::
                                             2        WP 6253 of 2004

     Shri. V.B. Patil, Advocate, for petitioner.

     Shri. S.B. Pulkundwar, Assistant Government Pleader, for
     respondent No.1.

     Shri. P.B. Paithankar, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 5.

                                        ----

                                 Coram:         T.V. NALAWADE &
                                                SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

                                 Date   :       3 AUGUST 2017


     JUDGMENT: (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.)


     1)               The petition is filed for relief of giving direction

to the respondent - M.S.E.B. to consider the proposal of

the petitioner for giving her appointment on

compassionate ground and give her such appointment.

Both the sides are heard.

2) Mother of the petitioner was in service of

respondent on the post of Junior Clerk. She died on 29-6-

1999 due to ill health. It is the case of the petitioner that

she was totally depending on the deceased for her

livelihood and even at the time of the death of her mother

she was depending on the deceased. It is her case that she

is divorced by her husband and she is required to

3 WP 6253 of 2004

maintain two daughters. It is contended that in view of

these circumstances she made representation to the

respondent on 21-12-1999 to give her appointment on

compassionate ground. It is contended that she was called

by the respondents for interview and her record was

perused but ultimately in the month of August 2001 it was

informed by respondents that as she is divorced daughter

of the deceased, she cannot be treated as member of the

family of the deceased and so appointment cannot be

given to her on compassionate ground.

3) It is the case of the petitioner that as per rules

framed by the respondent in the year 1980 daughter was

included in the family of the employee. It is contended

that the rules were amended in the year 1987 and first

time condition was laid down that daughter should be

un-married. It is contended that such discrimination is not

possible and in view of the object behind the rules of

giving appointment on compassionate ground, she is

entitled to get appointment. Prayer is made to quash and

set aside the rule which was amended in the year 1987.

                                                  4            WP 6253 of 2004

     4)               Respondent           has        filed   reply       affidavit         and

aforesaid defence is taken by the respondent. The

circumstance that mother of the petitioner was in

employment is not disputed. The correspondence made

with the petitioner by which the result on the

representation was informed is also on record.

5) The petitioner is relying on the observations

made by this Court in the case reported as 2011(5)

Bom.C.R. 34 (Aparna Narendra Zambre v. Assistant

Superintending Engineer). In that case a married

daughter was denied the benefit of such scheme and so

she had filed the proceeding. This Court gave direction to

the employer to consider the claim though it was held that

at the relevant time, in the year 2003, the daughter was

unmarried. On this point learned counsel for the

petitioner placed reliance on some observations made by

the Apex Court in the case reported as 2007 AIRSCW 826

(P.V. George v. State of Kerala). Though those

observations were in different context with regard to the

prospective application of the rules in the cases like

present one, the employer is expected to act as per the

5 WP 6253 of 2004

spirit of the scheme. If in the past daughter was entitled

and due to amendment married daughter was taken out of

the scope of the scheme, denying appointment to married

daughter or divorced daughter would amount to

discrimination against her if she was really depending on

the deceased for her livelihood. Aforesaid contentions of

the petitioner are not disputed. In view of these

circumstances, this Court holds that relief needs to be

granted in favour of the petitioner.

6) In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of

prayer clause (D). The respondents to decide the claim

within two months from today. Rule made absolute in

those terms.

                    Sd/-                                 Sd/-
     (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.)                       (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)




     rsl