Ku. Vaishnavi D/O Mohan Deshmukh ... vs The Principal Secretary, Public ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2276 Bom

38-J-WP-5472-21                                                         1/4


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

                    WRIT PETITION NO.5472 OF 2021


1. Ku. Vaishnavi D/o Mohan Deshmukh
   Aged about 20 yrs, Occ Student,

2. Sujata Wd/o Mohan Deshmukh,
   Both R/o Uday Colony, Sai Nagar,
   Amravati Mob. No.7350653046                          ... Petitioners

-vs-

1. The Principal Secretary,
   Public Work Department,
   Opp. G.P.O. CBI Colony,
   Civil Lines, Nagpur

2. The Executive Engineer,
   Public Work Department,
   Akola, Dist. Akola

3. The Superintendent Engineer,
   Public Work Department,
   Akola, Dist. Akola

4. The Collector,
   Dist. Akola                                ... Respondents


Shri Amit Ravikant Prasad, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

            CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

DATE : March 09, 2023

Oral Judgment : (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

The father of the petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner 38-J-WP-5472-21 2/4

No.2 was employed with the respondent No.1-Public Works

Department. He died in harness on 07/10/2007. His widow made an

application seeking appointment on compassionate basis on

21/04/2008. This application came to be rejected on 18/07/2008 for

the reason that the widow had crossed the age of forty years and hence

her application could not be considered. At that point of time the

petitioner No.1 was a minor. Shortly after attaining the age of majority

she made an application on 13/11/2017 seeking appointment on

compassionate basis. That application was under consideration of the

Authorities but ultimately on 05/10/2020 the same was rejected on the

ground that the application was made belatedly. Being aggrieved the

said communication dated 05/10/2020 is challenged in this writ

petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. It is

not in dispute that the initial application made by the widow was

rejected on 18/07/2008 on the ground that she had crossed the age of

forty years. The claim was not considered on merits but came to be

filed as the widow had crossed the permissible age. The petitioner

No.1 made an application on 13/11/2017 which is prior to her

attaining the age of majority. She attained the age of majority on 38-J-WP-5472-21 3/4

16/12/2018. As per Government Resolution dated 21/09/2017 and

especially Clause (10) thereof, a minor can make an application for

seeking compassionate appointment within a period of one year of

attaining the age of majority. In the present case such application has

been made prior to attaining the age of majority. The same has

however not been considered only on the ground that it has been made

belatedly. The Authorities perhaps took into consideration the date of

death which is 07/10/2007. As a result the claim of the daughter has

not been considered on merits.

3. We find that the application seeking grant of compassionate

appointment ought to be considered on its own merits especially when

such application was made by the daughter shortly prior to attaining

the age of majority. When the impugned order was passed, the

daughter was major. In these facts therefore, we are inclined to direct

the respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated

13/11/2017 on its own merits and in the light of Government

Resolution dated 21/09/2017.

4. In view of aforesaid the impugned communication dated

05/10/2020 is set aside. The petitioner's application dated

13/11/2017 is restored for being considered in accordance with the 38-J-WP-5472-21 4/4

Government Resolution dated 21/09/2017. Such decision be taken

within a period of six weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. The

parties shall act in accordance with the decision taken.

With these directions the writ petition is partly allowed and

disposed of. Rule accordingly. No costs.

(M. W. Chandwani, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

Asmita

Digitally signed byASMITA ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR Signing Date:13.03.2023 10:37:06