Smt.Vandana Wd/O Satyawan Zade ... vs State Of Mah. Mumbai & 2 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3415 Bom

                                                    1                                 Judg. wp 708.02.odt 

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                         Writ Petition No.708 of 2002

              Smt. Vandana wd/o Satyawan Zade,
              Aged about 34 years, Occ.-Nil,
              R/o. C/o- Shri Bhauraoji Sitaramji Mangrulkar, 
              Ekori Ward, Chandrapur.                                            .... Petitioner.

                                                               -Versus-

              1]       State of Maharashtra,
                       through its Secretary,
                       Rural Development Department, 
                       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

              2]       Zilla Parishad Gadchiroli,
                       through its Chief Executive Officer, Gadchiroli.

              3]      Project Director,
                      District Rural Development Agency, 
                      Gadchiroli.                                                     .... Respondents.
              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shri Rohit Vaidya, Advocate holding for Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate 
              for  petitioner.
              Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
              Shri J. Mokadam, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Coram : R. K. Deshpande & 
                             Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

               Dated  : 21    June, 2017
                              st
                                           

              ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)





                                                     2                                 Judg. wp 708.02.odt 

One Satyawan Zade the husband of the petitioner was

appointed as Deputy Accountant on 10-11-1983 in the services of

the respondent no.3-Project Director, District Rural Development

Agency, Gadchiroli, where he worked till 08-02-2000, when he died

leaving behind him the petitioner and two minor children. This

petition is filed to seek an employment under the respondent no.2-

Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli on compassionate ground in the available

vacant post. It also claims the family pension in accordance with

the Government Resolution dated 21-10-2000.

2] We have heard Shri Rohit Vaidya, the learned Counsel holding

for Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri

Ukey, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent

no.1 and Shri Mokadam, the learned Counsel for respondent

nos. 2 and 3. We have also gone through the return filed by the

respondent no.2.

3] It is not in dispute that the employment of Satyawan Zade was

under the respondent no.3 which is an District Rural Development

Agency created by the State Government for carrying out the certain

developmental works under the supervision of the respondent no.2-

Zilla Parishad. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the

petitioner was neither in the employment of respondent no.1 the State

3 Judg. wp 708.02.odt

Government nor in the employment of respondent no.2. By issuing

Government Resolution dated 21-10-2000 all the persons working

under the respondent no.3 were absorbed in the services of Zilla

Parishad under the scheme prepared for that purpose. In the

proposal for absorption dated 18/30-07-1996 prepared by Zilla

Parishad, Gadchiroli it was noted that the appointment of the Deputy

Accountant in the services of respondent no.3 was made in

accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads

District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967. The name of the

petitioner was included at serial no.6 for absorption in service

subject to the orders to be issued by the State Government. On

10-10-1996, the proposal was also forwarded to the Deputy

Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department

of the State Government.

4] It is the stand taken by the respondents that the husband of

the petitioner was in the service of the District Rural Development

Agency which is not the department of Zilla Parishad but it is a

separate agency. It is the stand taken that by Government Resolution

dated 22-02-1985, the Maharashtra Civil Services (General

Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981 were made applicable to the

direct recruits in Class-III cadre of the District Rural Development

Agency, except Rules of pension and gratuity and the question of

4 Judg. wp 708.02.odt

absorption the employees under the respondent no.3 was under

consideration of the State Government. It is the stand taken that the

Class-III and Class-IV employees appointed under the respondent

no.3-District Rural Development Agency are not entitled to pension.

It is also the stand taken that though there was an order of absorption

of the petitioner in service of the Zilla Parishad passed on

05-02-2001, it was by mistake, as the husband of the petitioner had

already expired on 08-02-2000 and therefore the said order was

cancelled on 09-05-2002. As per the Government Resolution dated

21-10-2000 the employees working under the respondent no.3 were

entitled to all the benefits applicable to the employees under the Zilla

Parishad from the date of issuance of such Government Resolution

and since the husband of the petitioner expired prior to the issuance

of this Government Resolution, the benefits under the service of

Zilla Parishad were not made available to him.

5] The husband of the petitioner worked in the respondent no.3

Agency from 1983 till 8-2-2000. The unfortunate event of death of

the husband of the petitioner on 08-02-2000, occurred prior to the

issuance of Government Resolution dated 21-10-2000. Obviously,

the issuance of wrong order for absorption on 05-02-2001 will not

confer any right upon the petitioner to urge that the husband of the

petitioner should be treated as an employee of the Zilla Parishad

5 Judg. wp 708.02.odt

having been absorbed prior to his death on 08-02-2000. The

pensionary benefits were not available to the employees working

under the respondent no.3 prior to 21-10-2000. The petitioner is not

coming with the case that her husband was an employee of the State

Government but it appears that the respondent no.3 was the agency

employed for limited purpose of carrying out the development

activities by the State Government and hence the employment of the

petitioner under the respondent no.3 cannot be considered as an

employment under the State Government. In spite of our best efforts

to find out as to how the petitioner a destitute woman can be helped,

we are unable to fit the case in the four corners of law and mere

sympathy would not be enough.

6] In view of above, we do not find any substance in the petition.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

                                 JUDGE                                             JUDGE




              Deshmukh