Bombay High Court
Shri. Navneet S/O. Dharamdas ... vs State Of Maha., Through Ruler ... on 30 January, 2018
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp6815.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6815 OF 2015
Navneet s/o. Dharamdas Goller,
Aged 32 years, Occ. Private Job,
r/o. Lala Lajpatray Ward,
Nashik Nagar, Bhandara,
Tq. and District Bhandara. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1.State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary, Rural
Development Department,
25, First Floor, Bandhkam
Bhavan Building, Marzaban
Path, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
2.The Secretary,
General Administrative Department,
Mantralay, Mumbai-400 001.
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2018 01:59:09 :::
2 wp6815.15.odt
3.The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara.
4.The Deputy Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara, Tq. and Distt.
Bhandara.
5.The Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara, Through Chief
Executive Officer, Tq. and
District Bhandara.
6.Smt.Manorama wd/o.Dharamdas
Goller, Aged about 43 years, Occ.
Household, r/o. Lata Lajpatrai
Ward, Nasik Nagar, Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara
(Maharashtra).
7.Ku.Shraddha d/o. Dharamdas Goller,
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Student,
r/o. Lala Lajpatrai Ward, Nasik Nagar,
Bhandara, Tq. and Distt. Bhandara
(Maharashtra).
8.Ku.Poonam d/o. Dharamdas Goller,
Aged about 27 years, Occ. Student,
r/o. Ambedkar Ward, Opp. Panchayat
Samiti, Khapa, Tq.Tumsar and Distt.
Bhandara (Maharashtra).
9.Manmeet s/o. Dharamdas Goller,
Aged about 22 years, Occ. Student,
r/o. Ambedkar Ward, Opp. Panchayat
Samiti, Khapa, Tq.Tumsar, Distt.
Bhandara (Maharashtra). .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2018 01:59:09 :::
3 wp6815.15.odt
____________________________________________________________
Mr.N.A.Gaikwad, Advocate h/f. Mr.A.A.Naik, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Mr.J.Y.Ghurde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.H.N.Verma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 30th JANUARY, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K.Deshpande, J) :
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the
consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The father of the petitioner was in the employment of
Zilla Parishad as a Junior Clerk and expired on 1.4.2006. The
petitioner being the son applied on 6.6.2006 for grant of
employment on compassionate ground as per the policy for that
purpose prevailing under the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner is asked
since then to bring the No-Objection Certificates from all the legal
heirs of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has
furnished No Objection from his mother and real sister. However, the
4 wp6815.15.odt
step-mother and step-brother have refused to grant No-Objection. It
is brought on record that the claim of the step-brother/respondent
no.9 Manmeet Goller was rejected on 25th September, 2014. He,
thereafter, did not pursue his claim for employment on
compassionate ground. It is informed that the claim of step-mother
in Succession Proceedings was rejected and the appeal against that
was also dismissed.
3. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no propriety in
insisting upon production of No-Objection Certificates from the
respondent no.9 or the step-mother. The step-sister who is
respondent no.8 is already married and her claim is, therefore, not
tenable.
4. In view of this, the present Writ Petition is allowed. The
Orders dt.2.8.2012 and 28.8.2015 insisting upon the petitioner for
production of No-Objection Certificates are hereby quashed and set
aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the
petitioner for providing employment on compassionate ground on
the basis of his application dt.6.6.2006, without insisting upon for
5 wp6815.15.odt
production of No-Objection Certificate from any other legal heir of
the deceased including the respondent nos. 6 to 9.
The decision be taken in accordance with law within a
period of three months from today, failing which the respondent
no.3 shall have to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
6 wp6815.15.odt
