Tukaram Mahadu Patil And Anr vs The State Of Mah And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3291 Bom

                                      1        WP 7563 of 2008

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                         Writ Petition No.7563 of 2008


     1)      Tukaram s/o Mahadu Patil,
             Age 57 years,
             Occupation : Nil,
             R/o Dharangaon,
             Taluka Dharangaon,
             District Jalgaon.

     2)      Rajesh s/o Tukaram Patil,
             Age 29 years,
             Occupation: Nil,
             R/o As above.                            ..    Petitioners.

                      Versus

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

     2)      The Maharashtra State Road
             Transport Corporation,
             Through its Managing Director,
             Central Office, Maharashtra
             Wahatuk Bhavan,
             Dr. Anantrao Nair Road,
             Mumbai - 08.

     3)      The Divisional Controller,
             Maharashtra State Road
             Transport corporation,
             Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon.       .. Respondents.

                                      ----




::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:33:03 :::
                                          2        WP 7563 of 2008

     Shri. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for petitioners.

     Smt. P.V. Diggikar, Assistant Government Pleader, for
     respondent No.1.

     Shri. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

                                         ----

                                Coram:       T.V. NALAWADE &
                                             SANGITRAO S PATIL, JJ.

Date: 16 June 2017.

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

1) The petition is filed for giving directions to the

respondent, MSRTC, for giving appointment to petitioner

No.2 on compassionate ground in view of the

circumstance that the petitioner No.1 who was employee

of MSRTC, is declared as disqualified for continuing in

service and his services were terminated. Both the sides

are heard.

2) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on the decision given by this Court in Writ

Petition No.7376/2008 decided with Writ Petition No.

7387/2008 on 31-7-2009. Similar point was involved and

the Circulars dated 28-7-2006 and dated 24-8-2006 issued

3 WP 7563 of 2008

by the MSRTC which are given effect from 9-6-2006

were considered. This Court held that such Circulars

cannot be given retrospective effect and if a person

already was declared as disqualified and was terminated

the previous policy of the MSRTC needs to be used in

favour of family member of such employee. In view of this

circumstance, this Court holds that similar relief needs to

be granted in the present matter.

3) In the result, the petition is allowed. Relief in

terms of prayer clause (C) for giving direction to consider

the case of petitioner No.2 for appointment on

compassionate ground is granted. Rule made absolute in

those terms.

             Sd/-                                           Sd/-
     (SANGITRAO S PATIL, J.)                        (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)




     rsl