Bombay High Court
Sanjay Ganpat Prasad Tiwaree And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1 WP / 9239 / 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9239 OF 2022
SANJAY GANPAT PRASAD TIWAREE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for petitioners : Mr. Arun G. Dalal
AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. K.N. Lokhande
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 13 SEPTEMBER 2022
ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Heard the learned advocates for the petitioners and the
learned AGP.
2. The petitioners are the sons of the applicant -
Chandrakalabai who had filed original application before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal claiming to be the wife of late
Ganpatprasad Pardeshi (Tiwaree) who was serving as a Motor
Mechanic in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad
(respondent no. 2), claiming monthly family pension. By the order
under challenge the Tribunal dismissed the original application inter
alia holding that the circumstances brought on record falsified her claim
of being widow of late Ganpatprasad.
2 WP / 9239 / 2022
3. Mr. Dalal would submit that right in the teeth of the heirship
certificate, Chandrakalabai's claim could not have been rejected. The
Tribunal has unnecessarily undertaken minute scrutiny to reach a
remote conclusion falsifying her claim of being the widow of
Ganpatprasad. The order is illegal and petitioners being the sons of
Chandrakalabai are entitled to put up a challenge.
4. The learned AGP supports the impugned order.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of Advocate
Dalal and perused the papers.
6. At the outset, even before adverting to the merits, it is
crucial to note down certain circumstances which according to us are
eloquent enough and even would justify our decision to not entertain
the writ petition.
7. Ganpatprasad died in the year 1983. Though petitioners'
mother - Chandrakalabai was asserting and even they are claiming that
she was the second wife of Ganpatprasad, for the first time she
submitted the application with the respondent no. 2 to sanction her the
family pension in the year 2012 i.e. after about 29 years from the date
of death of Ganpatprasad. Even after her request was rejected or was
not being considered favourably, she took another 3 years to file the
3 WP / 9239 / 2022
original application before the Tribunal. It was rejected by the
impugned order in 2015. Aggrieved thereby she filed writ petition
no. 703 of 2017. She died on 17-07-2018 during pendency of that
petition.
8. Since no steps were taken, obviously by the petitioners
being her sons to set aside the abatement and to come on record, by
the order dated 01-03-2022 this Court disposed of the writ petition as
abated. Instead of moving any application seeking setting aside of the
abatement to revive the writ petition, the petitioners have preferred the
present petition putting up a fresh challenge to the selfsame order of
the Tribunal whereby it had rejected Chandrakalabai's original
application.
9. We are afraid, such a course is unheard of and patently
illegal. If Chandrakalabai had put up a challenge to the selfsame order
of the Tribunal but had died during pendency of her writ petition and it
was disposed of as abated, one wonders how the petitioners could
have preferred fresh writ petition. Precisely for this reason alone, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Even if we decide to consider the matter on merits, the
dispute as to whether Chandrakalabai was the widow of Ganpatprasad
was the issue which was addressed to and decided by the Tribunal by
4 WP / 9239 / 2022
the judgment under challenge. It has referred to various attending
circumstances which according to it falsified such a claim by
Chandrakalabai. According to us, the observations and the
conclusions of the Tribunal are clearly borne out from the
circumstances discussed by it. It has noticed that no claim was put up
for the family pension for almost 29 years after demise of
Ganpatprasad which conduct in itself was sufficient to create a serious
doubt about Chandrakalabai's claim.
11. Though the death certificate that was available with the
office of the respondent no. 2 was issued by Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad, Chandrakalabai had produced a death certificate issued by
Grampanchayat certifying that he had died at village Kanergaon
(Naka). Again, it was also noticed that the heirship certificate was
obtained by Chandrakalabai without arraying the present respondents
nos. 6 to 10, who even according to petitioners, are the legal heirs of
Ganpatprasad being his sons from his first wife - Shantabai. It also
noticed that if at all Ganpatprasad had married Chandrakalabai in the
year 1971, he would have immediately taken steps to nominate her in
the pension papers but that was not done.
12. In our considered view, in the absence of any cogent and
convincing evidence to reach a conclusion that Chandrakalabai was
Ganpatprasad's widow, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal being
5 WP / 9239 / 2022
based on a plausible appreciation of the material on the record, cannot
be said to be perverse or arbitrary so as to enable this Court to cause
any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
13. The writ petition is dismissed.
[ SANDEEP V. MARNE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
