Bombay High Court
Priyanka Pankaj Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 February, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 10330 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No.10330 of 2016
* Priyaka Pankaj Patil,
Age 28 years,
Occupation: Nil,
R/o C/o Dilip Bhimrao Patil,
Kadewadi, Nadenagar,
Bharat Colony, Near Mane School,
Pimpri Pune,
Taluka & District Pune. .. Petitioner.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Welfare Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2) The Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department,
Tribal Commissioner Office,
Nasik, Taluka & District Nasik
3) The Project Officer,
Tribal Development Department,
Taloda, District Nandurbar.
4) Government Post Basic Ashram
Shala, Talamba,
Taluka Akkalkuwa,
District Nandurbar,
Through its Head Master.
5) Surekhabai Nimba Patil,
Age 65 years,
Occupation: Household,
R/o A/P Saine,
Taluka and District Dhule. .. Respondents.
----
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 00:38:13 :::
2 WP 10330 of 2016
Shri. A.R. Syed, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader,
for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Shri. V.P. Raje, Advocate, holding for Shri. H.F.
Pawar, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
----
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Date: 27 February 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, heard both sides for final disposal.
2) The petition is filed for giving
directions to the respondents to consider the
application made by the present petitioner to
give her appointment on compassionate ground. Her
husband was in employment of respondent No.4 as
Junior Clerk and he died when he was in the
employment. It appears that respondent No.5, who
is the mother of the deceased, is not giving
consent for giving such appointment to the
petitioner. Due to this circumstance, respondent
No.3 is not giving decision on the application
made by the petitioner.
3 WP 10330 of 2016
3) Learned counsel representing respondent
No.5 submits that she is old lady and she was
dependent for her livelihood on the deceased and
she is not sure that the present petitioner will
maintain her if she gets such appointment.
Respondent No.5 due to her age cannot get
appointment and the main dependent was the
petitioner. In view of these circumstances this
Court holds that if there is no other obstacle,
the present petitioner is entitled to get such
appointment. There will no necessity to get
consent of respondent No.5, mother of the
deceased for giving such appointment. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the observations made by this Court at this
Bench in Writ Petition No.1863/2014 (Pravin
Nimbalkar v. The State of Maharashtra and
others).
4) The apprehension of the respondent No.5
can be taken care of by giving some specific
directions in her favour.
4 WP 10330 of 2016
5) In the result, the petition is allowed.
Respondent No.3 is to give decision on the
representation made by the petitioner for giving
her appointment on compassionate ground within 45
days from the date of receipt of this order.
Respondent No.3 should not insist for getting
consent of respondent No.5. However, undertaking
is to be obtained from the petitioner that she
will give one-third of the salary to the
respondent No.5 if she gets such appointment.
Further the undertaking should contain statement
that the petitioner will have no objection if
such amount is deducted directly from her salary
and it is sent to respondent No.5. Respondent
No.5 will be entitled to get this amount till her
death. The application is to be decided on its
own merits by the respondent No.3. Rule made
absolute in those terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
