Vaishali Sudhakar Pate vs The Chief Executive Officer, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10943 Bom

                                        1                              ra 175.2016

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

   920 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO.175 OF 2016
                        IN
          WRIT PETITION NO. 1145 OF 2015

                  VAISHALI SUDHAKAR PATE
                           VERSUS
      THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLHA PARISHAD,
                    JALGAON AND ANOTHER
                            ...
       Advocate for Applicant: Mr. Patil Paresh B.
                            ...

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

                               DATE:    12th AUGUST, 2021

 PER COURT:

 1.       The       applicant          seeks   review      of      the       order

 passed          by      the     Division      Bench     of      this        Court

(Coram: S. S. Shinde & A. M. Badar, JJ.) dated

September 09, 2015 in Writ Petition No. 1145 of

2015.

2. The learned Counsel submits that subsequently

Government Resolution is issued dated 17.11.2016,

whereby, even if two or more married daughters are

in the family, they are entitled to apply for

compassionate appointment. The words "sole married

2 ra 175.2016

daughter" in the Government Resolution

dated 26.02.2013 has been deleted in the

subsequent Resolution. The learned Counsel submits

that the applicant could not at the relevant time

point out the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Case of Vijaya Ukarda Athor (Athawale) Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others reported in

(2015) 3 SCC 399, which also confirms that even if

there are two or more married daughters

compassionate appointment can be granted to the

married daughters.

3. The Resolution subsequent to the order under

Review need not be considered. The Court also

relied upon the Government Resolution

dated 26.02.2013 as in force on the date of the

order and has passed the Judgment.

4. The father of the applicant died in the

year-2000. After 21 years, the need for

compassionate appointment would not survive.

Moreover, it is also fact that the husband of the

petitioner is in permanent Government service.

3 ra 175.2016

5. Considering the above, no case for Review is

made out.

6. Review Application is disposed of. No costs.

[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

marathe