Shri. Manoj S/O Devrao Harsule vs The Executive Engineer, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6688 Bom

                                                      4jud wp 4590.2018.odt
                                         1

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

                   WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 4590/2018

         Shri Manoj s/o Devrao Harsule
         Aged: 31 years, Occu: Student
         R/o Vijay Nagar near Gopal Nagar,
         In Railway Crossing, Amravati         ..... PETITIONER

                                // VERSUS //

1.       The Executive Engineer
         Maharashtra State Electricity
         Distribution Company Ltd.
         Division Office, Yavatmal
         Tah. & Dist: Yavatmal.

2.       Smt. Anita Devrao Harsule
         Aged: 41 years, Occu: Household
         R/o c/o Gajanan Chaudhari,
         Malipura, Ner (Parsopant)
         Tah: Ner (Parsopant)
         Dist: Yavatmal.

3.       Pravin Devrao Harsule
         Aged: 22 years, Occu: Student
         R/o c/o Gajanan Chaudhari,
         Malipura, Ner (Parsopant)
         Tah: Ner (Parsopant),
         Dist: Yavatmal.

4.       Ku. Sonali Devrao Harsule
         Aged: 32 years, Occu: Student
         R/o c/o Gajanan Chaudhari,
         Malipura, Ner (Parsopant)
         Tah: Ner (Parsopant),
         Dist: Yavatmal.

         Correct Address
         Ku. Sonali Devrao Harsule
         Aged: 32 years, Occ: Student

SMGate
                                                                    4jud wp 4590.2018.odt
                                           2

          R/o C/o Laxman Surjuse
          Shashkiya Anusuchit Jati Mulanchi
          Shala, Near, Diwan Saheb Dargah,
          Tuljapur, Tah. Mangrulpir,
          District- Washim.                                 .... RESPONDENT(S)

          Amended as per Court's
          order dated 07.06.2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri D.M. Surjuse, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Shri N.S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 None for respondent no. 4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.J. DATED : 14/07/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that his father who was

working as Lineman with the respondent no. 1 expired on 14.10.2006.

The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate basis. It appears

that the petitioner's father had contracted second marriage during the

subsistence of his earlier marriage. In the Succession Case that was

preferred by the first wife and her children, an order was passed on the

basis of compromise dated 03.10.2007 wherein it was agreed by the

family members that the petitioner would be entitled to claim

appointment on compassionate basis. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner

SMGate 4jud wp 4590.2018.odt

made applications for appointment on compassionate basis. Those

applications are dated 20.10.2008 and 13.02.2009. The respondent no.

1 informed the petitioner to submit various documents to enable

consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment. Ultimately on

01.09.2017, the respondent no. 1 has called upon the petitioner to

remove various deficiencies in the proposal for seeking compassionate

appointment. In that backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court

praying that the decision be taken on the representations made by him

seeking appointment on compassionate basis.

3. We find that on 01.09.2017 and 13.12.2017 the petitioner

has been called upon to submit various documents to enable

consideration of the prayer for appointment on compassionate basis. It

would therefore be necessary for the petitioner to submit those requisite

documents that would enable consideration of his claim by the

respondent no. 1.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting

the petitioner to submit all necessary documents to the respondent no. 1

in terms of the letters dated 01.09.2017 and 13.12.2017. If the

respondent no. 1 requires any further information from the petitioner

same shall be communicated to the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 to

enable consideration of his applications. If the petitioner supplies all

SMGate 4jud wp 4590.2018.odt

requisite documents as sought by the respondent no. 1, the respondent

no. 1 shall consider the petitioner's prayer for appointment on

compassionate basis expeditiously and communicate the outcome to the

petitioner.

5. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Rule

accordingly. No costs.

6. Civil Application (CAW) No. 1961/2021 is also disposed of.

                 (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)          (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)




          Digitally
          signed by
          SANDIP
SANDIP    MAHADEV
MAHADEV   GATE
GATE      Date:
          2022.07.14
          18:57:43
          +0530




 SMGate