Sunita Purushottam Kudve vs Maharashtra State Warehouse ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2913 Bom

935-WP-4451-21                                                                         1/3


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

                           WRIT PETITION NO.4451 OF 2021


1. Sunita Purushottam Kudve,
   Age 48 years. Occu. Housewife

2. Priyanka Purushottam Kudve,
   Age 28 yrs, Occu. Labour work
   Both residents of House No.597
   Republican Nagar, Indora Zopada
   Jaripatka Road, Indora, Nagpur                               ... Petitioners

-vs-

1. Maharashtra State Warehouse Corporation,
   through its Managing Director, 583/B,
   Market Yard, Gul Tekadi, Pune 411037

2. State of Maharashtra
   Through it's Chief Secretary
   Mantralaya, Mumbai                                           ... Respondents


Shri S. S. Das, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri N. R. Saboo, Advocate with Ms A. S. Lanjewar, Advocate for respondent
No.1.
Ms N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

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

DATE : March 24, 2023

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

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2

was in employment with the respondent No.1-Corporation. He died in

harness on 17/03/2012. The petitioner No.1 sought appointment on

935-WP-4451-21 2/3

compassionate basis by moving an application dated 12/04/2012. The

respondent No.1 on 28/11/2017 informed the petitioners that since the

petitioner No.1 had crossed the age of forty five years, her name was

liable to be struck off from the waiting list. The petitioner No.2 made a

fresh application dated 22/12/2017 seeking appointment on

compassionate basis. This application has been rejected on 08/02/2018

by stating therein that there was no provision to substitute a name that

was already entered in the waiting list. Being aggrieved by the said

communication, the petitioner No.2 issued fresh communication on

15/07/2020 seeking re-consideration of the decision taken by the

respondent No.1. In aforesaid backdrop, this writ petition has been filed

seeking consideration of the name of petitioner No.2 for compassionate

appointment.

2. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the documents on record, it can be seen that after the

Corporation rejected the request made by the petitioner No.2 on

08/02/2018, this Court has in Writ Petition No.6267/2018 (Dnyaneshwar

s/o Ramkishan Musane vs. The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary,

School Education and Sports Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.) decided

on 11/03/2020 at the Aurangabad Bench taken a view that denial of

request for substitution of the name of legal representative in place of the

935-WP-4451-21 3/3

name existing in such list in the context of Government Resolution dated

20/05/2015 is unjustified. We therefore find that the application dated

15/07/2020 made by the petitioner No.2 seeking re-consideration of such

request deserves to be considered by the Corporation in the light of

aforesaid decision.

3. In view of aforesaid, the respondent No.1-Corporation is

directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 15/07/2020 and

take a decision thereon within a period of six weeks from receiving copy

of this judgment.

It is made clear that in the light of the decision in

Dnyaneswhwar Musane (supra), the earlier order dated 08/02/2018 shall

not come in the way of parties when such fresh decision is taken.

The Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Rule

accordingly. No order as to costs.

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




Asmita