Bombay High Court
Narendra Ukanda Avadhut vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 17 October, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1 MCA No. 16.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 16 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1052 OF 2021 (D)
Shri Narendra Ukanda Avadhut
..VS..
The State of Maharashtra and others
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vishal Anand, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for non-
applicant Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : 17.10.2022
Heard Mr. Vishal Anand, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. K.L. Dhamadhikari, learned Assistant
Government Pleader who appears by waiving notice for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Learned counsel for the review applicant has
relied upon the case of Dnyaneshwar S/o Ramkishan
Musane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others , in Writ
Petition No. 6267 of 2018, decided on 11.03.2020 and
submits that the Government Resolution dated
20.05.2015 imposing prohibition upon substitution of
name of any legal representative of deceased employee
by other legal representative is arbitrary, irrational and
unreasonable.
3. However, there is now a well settled law declaring
that the right to seek compassionate appointment does
not survive to legal representatives of the eligible legal
heir, especially after passage of long period of time since
the death of the father or the mother, in harness.
4. Of course, in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs.
State of Orissa and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 522, the
Apex Court has held that the authorities must consider
and decide the applications for appointment on
compassionate ground, as per the policy prevalent, at the
earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the
date of submission of such completed applications. In
doing so, the Apex Court has also given a direction to
decide the application of the appellant therein in
accordance with the policy which was in existence on the
date of his application made in July 2010.
5. In the present case, the review applicant had made
his application on 12.03.2020 and on that date, there
was no policy of the State of Maharashtra which was an
existence and which permitted substitution of the name
of the eligible legal heir by the name of the other legal
representative for seeking appointment on compassionate
basis. This is what is held by this Court in the judgment
and order under review, which being a view taken cannot
be substituted by another view, as this Court is not sitting
in appeal over it's own judgment. Then, the view taken
in the case of Dnyaneshwar S/o Ramkishan Musane
(supra) has no application to the facts of the present case
for the reason that the Government Resolution dated
20.05.2015, found to be unreasonable by the Co-ordinate
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6267 of
2018, now is no longer in existence and has been
superseded by the new policy of the State of
Maharashtra, which was prevailing on the date of the
application of the review applicant.
6. In view of above, we find that there is no error
apparent on the face of the record. The Review
Application stands dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kirtak
Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK
BHIMRAO JANARDHAN
Signing Date:17.10.2022
18:30
