Babanbai Dadarao Ghorpade vs Marathwada Agricultural ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10732 Bom

                                    1             983-wp 13750-2019.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 13750 OF 2019
 Babanbai Dadarao Ghorpade                                     .. Petitioner
       Versus
 Marathwada Agricultural University,
 Parbhani through its Vice Chancellor
 and others                                                    .. Respondents
 Mr. Ganesh A. Gadhe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mrs. V. A. Shinde-More, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
 Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 11.

                               CORAM :   S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                         R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATED : 10th AUGUST, 2021.

PER COURT:-

. Mr. Gadhe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is the wife of the deceased Dadarao who was in employment

with respondent No. 1. The husband of the petitioner died on

17.07.2007 immediately upon superannuation. The learned counsel

submits that respondent Nos. 5 to 11 have filed Civil Suit challenging

the status of the petitioner that she is not legal wedded wife of

deceased Dadarao Ghorpade. On 05.03.2016, the Civil Court has

delivered the judgment holding that the present petitioner is the legally

wedded wife of deceased Dadarao and further orders are passed

regarding the apportionment of the amount of gratuity and provident

fund.

2. The said judgment would be binding on all the parties. The

present respondent No. 1 was also party to the said Civil Suit.

                                                                            1 of 2





                                     2                983-wp 13750-2019.odt

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that

the petitioner is required to comply with certain documentation and

that the petitioner is not vacating the official quarter.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner

is not residing in the official quarter.

5. The respondent No. 1 can take steps for evacuating the persons

occupying official quarter after the death of Dadarao, in accordance

with law and for the said purpose the respondent No. 1 cannot

withhold the statutory benefits entitled to by the petitioner in

accordance with the provisions of the statute, rules and the judgment

of the Civil Court, more particularly when petitioner is not occupying

the official quarter.

6. In the light of above, the respondent No. 1 shall process the

papers of the petitioner for family pension on its own merits and take

decision with regard to the grant of family pension to the petitioner,

expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (03) months from

today.

7. Writ petition accordingly is disposed of. No costs.

 ( R. N. LADDHA )                               ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
      JUDGE                                               JUDGE
 P.S.B.




                                                                               2 of 2