Mohini Shrawan Wagh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8580 Bom

                                                              W.P. No.7114/2006
                                      (( 1 ))


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        WRIT PETITION NO.7114 OF 2006



 Mohini w/o Shrawan Wagh,
 Age 25 years, Occu. Service as Peon,
 R/o Ramdas Thakarenagar,
 Pungaon Road, Pachora,
 Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon               ...      PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          through the Secretary,
          School Education & Sports Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

 2.       Education Officer (Secondary),
          Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon

          (Copy of respondents No.1 & 2
          to be served through Office of
          Government Pleader, High Court of
          Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)

 3.       Nutan Mahila Sarvodaya
          Balvikas Sanstha,
          through its Director / Secretary,
          Nirmal Building, Deshmukhwadi,
          Pachora, Taluka Pachora,
          District Jalgaon.

 4.       Smt. Nirmalatai Taware Kanya
          Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sambhajinagar,
          Pachora, Taluka Pachora,
          District Jalgaon,
          through its Head Mistress

 5.       Ekwira Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
          Veruli, Taluka Pachora,
          District Jalgaon,
          through its Head Master.              ...      RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:15:59 :::
                                                              W.P. No.7114/2006
                                    (( 2 ))


                               .....
 Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
 Mrs. V.S. Choudhary, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2
                               .....

                               CORAM:     RAVINDRA .V. GHUGE AND
                                          SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED : 9th NOVEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):

1. By this petition, the petitioner widow is aggrieved by

the refusal of approval to her appointment as a Peon on

compassionate basis. She has been appointed on 10.6.2005 in

place of her husband, who met with a railway accident while in

employment.

2. By order dated 25.4.2007, this Court admitted the

petition and directed the respondent No.2 Education Officer

(Secondary) to grant approval to the services of the petitioner

pending the disposal of this petition and consequently, initiate

appropriate action for payment of her salary from the date of her

appointment which is said to be 10.6.2005.

3. We have considered the submission of the learned

Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. on behalf of

respondent No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 to 5 have been served

after admission of this petition. No appearance has been

entered.

W.P. No.7114/2006 (( 3 ))

4. The learned A.G.P. draws our attention to the

Government Resolution dated 6.2.2004 to indicate that there was

a ban on recruitment. Until the staffing pattern was not devised

by the State and until the positions in the clerical and Class IV

categories were not vacant, no post was to be filled in.

5. This Court (Coram : S.V. Gangapurwala & Mangesh

S. Patil, JJ.) has delivered a judgment on 10.8.2017 in the

matter of Atul Prabhakar Sapkale Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.

(Writ Petition No.6634/2005). In identical set of facts, it is held

in para Nos.3 and 4 as under :

3. We have heard Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, so also learned Additional Government Pleader. The only reason given for non grant of approval is that, at the relevant time there was ban on recruitment.

4. In order dated 09.02.2015 in Writ Petition No.5732 of 2014, we had observed that, for a person to be appointed on compassionate ground, one need not go through the selection process. The petitioner is only person appointed on compassionate ground as per the policy. Considering the above, the reason given for rejection of approval is improper and is hereby set aside. The provisional approval is already granted to the petitioner under the orders of this Court. The respondent No.3, in case there is no other impediment, shall grant the approval to the appointment of the petitioner.

6. Even in this case, the petitioner has been working

W.P. No.7114/2006 (( 4 ))

from 10.6.2005 and has put in more than 12 years in

employment. Owing to the untimely demise of her husband,

when she was only 24 years old, one can visualize her plight and

it requires no debate that the present employment is the only

source of her survival.

7. Considering the above and the view taken by this

Court in the above referred judgment in Atul Prabhakar Sapkale

(supra), we are inclined to pass the same order.

8. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondent

No.2 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon shall

grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner, unless there

is any other legal impediment.

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

          ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL )             ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE )
               JUDGE                             JUDGE




 fmp/