Sangeeta Wd/O Ajay Mane vs State Of Maharashtra, Rural ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9050 Bom

                                                   40 wp 2992.22.odt
                                   1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

              WRIT PETITION NO.2992 OF 2022


1. Sangeeta Wd/o Ajay Mane,
 Aged- 44 years,
Occupation- Housewife,
R/o Plot No.92, Naringe Nagar,
Dhamangaon Road, Yavatmal
445001.

                                             ...      PETITIONER


                      ...VERSUS...

1. State of Maharashtra,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
through its Secretary

2. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
having its office at
94PF+VWC, Arni Road,
Umarsara, Yavatmal,
Maharashtra 445001, Yavatmal,
through its Chief Executive
Officer (C.E.O.)          ...             RESPONDENTS




___________________________________________________
Shri Rohan K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.P. Mehta, learned AGP for respondent No.1.
Shri Jaywant Y. Ghurade, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________

           CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE : 12/09/2022 40 wp 2992.22.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per: S.B. SHUKRE, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking

substitution of her son's name as wait listed candidate for

compassionate appointment. Name of her son is Himanshu

who has attained majority on 31.01.2021. She places

reliance upon some judgments rendered by Co-ordinate

Division Benches of this Court.

3. The facts of the case disclose following position:

a) The husband of the petitioner died in

harness in 2011 and the petitioner applied for her being

appointed on compassionate basis in the year 2012.

b) The name of the petitioner was

included in the waiting list that was prepared for making

compassionate appointments.

c) The petitioner, admittedly, would turn

45 years of age in December, 2022. But before the

petitioner could become age barred on her completing the 40 wp 2992.22.odt

age of 45 years, the petitioner has sought substitution of

her name by name of her son, Himanshu, in the waiting

list, as Himanshu has already turned 18 years of age.

d) The application in this regard was

made in December, 2021 which was not decided in any

manner by the respondents and therefore, she sent

reminders in the months of April and May, 2022, but in

vain.

e) Ultimately, the petitioner has filed this

petition seeking substitution of the name of her son

Himanshu in her place in the waiting list.

4. In order to support her claim, her learned

counsel has relied upon the view taken by this Court in

Dnyaneshwar Musane vs. State of Maharashtra and others

reported in 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. 381, Anjali Dashrath

Chauhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others , in W.P.

No.3344 of 2021, decided on 14.03.2022 and in Prashant

Bhimrao Desai and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra

through the Secretary of the Rural Development Dept. and

another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom. 8675.

40 wp 2992.22.odt

5. Shri Ghurade, learned counsel for the Zilla

Parishad resisting the claim, submits that facts of the cases

relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are

entirely different and therefore, the view taken in those

cases would have no application to the facts of the case.

He further submits that such distinction had also been

made by another Division Bench of this Court in case of

Gunjan Gajanan Bhongale Vs. The State of Maharashtra

and another, in Writ Petition No.143 of 2022, decided on

29.03.2022.

6. Insofar as the decisions in Dnyaneshwar

Musane and Anjali Chauhan (supra) are concerned, we

find Shri Ghurade to be right in his submission. There is

indeed a distinction made in the case of Gunjan Gajanan

Bhongale (supra) from the facts of the case of

Dnyaneshwar Musane (supra) and Anjali Chauhan

(supra). Doing the same exercise here as well, we find that

the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable from

the facts of Dnyaneshwar Musane (supra) and Anjali

Chauhan (supra).

40 wp 2992.22.odt

7. Dnyaneshwar Musane's case interpreted the

Government Resolution dated 28.05.2015, which is

substituted by the Government Resolution dated

21.09.2017 and therefore, the view taken in case of

Dnyaneshwar Musane (supra) would have no application

to the facts of the present case.

8. In the case of Anjali Chauhan (supra), it is

found that Anjali had already completed age of 45 years

and therefore, Division Bench, with a view to give effect to

the object of Compassionate Appointment Scheme, had

held that substitution of her name with the name of her

major son was deserving and therefore, had allowed that

petition with appropriate directions. Such is not the case

here and petitioner can still secure appointment on

compassionate basis as she is yet to complete 45 years of

age. In fact, from the communication placed on record by

learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad, dated 01.08.2022,

which is marked for identification as document "A", it is

clearly seen that petitioner was called for verification of 40 wp 2992.22.odt

documents with a view to offer her compassionate

appointment, but the petitioner did not remain present

and did not cooperate with Zilla Parishad. As a result, no

further processing of her claim for compassionate

appointment could be carried out by the Zilla Parishad. In

fact, we were inclined to dispose of this petition by issuing

necessary directions to the Zilla Parishad regarding

offering of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

But, learned counsel for the petitioner had initially stated

that it would be better that compassionate appointment

was offered to her son and not the petitioner. But, now on

instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that petitioner would cooperate with Zilla Parishad and

would present herself for verification of documents on the

date to be given to her by the authority in the next two

weeks. He also submits, on instructions, that petitioner is

ready to accept whatever appointment that would be

offered to her on compassionate basis.

9. With these submissions, we are of the view that

purposes of this petition would stand served by issuing 40 wp 2992.22.odt

necessary directions.

10. Before that, however, we make it clear that the

cases of Dnyaneshwar Musane and Anjali Chauhan

(supra) have no application to the facts of the present case

for the reasons stated earlier. Similarly, we are also of the

view that the case of Prashant Bhimrao Desai (supra) has

no application to this case as the facts of this case are

quite different from those involved in Prashant Bhimrao

Desai (supra). In Prashant Bhimrao Desai, the application

for substitution of name of petitioner No.1 had been made

way back in the year 2014 and whereas the prohibition

imposed upon name substitution came in the year 2015

and therefore, the 2015 Government Resolution had no

application to the case of petitioner No.1 in Prashant

Bhimrao Desai (supra). Secondly mother of petitioner

No.1 had possessed no qualification so as to be eligible for

getting any compassionate appointment. Such being not

the facts of this case, the case of Prashant Bhimrao Desai

(supra) would have no application to the facts of the 40 wp 2992.22.odt

present case.

11. In the result, we direct that an attempt be made

to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis to a

suitable post consistent with her qualifications, as early as

possible and preferably before the petitioner completes the

age of 45 years, provided of course vacancy is available.

12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

                                      JUDGE                                   JUDGE

    manisha




Signed By:MANISHA ALOK
SHEWALE


Signing Date:13.09.2022 18:07