Bombay High Court
Hemlata Chandrabhushan Salame And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 29 January, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:939-DB
-- 1 -- WP 4894.2024 (J) (Repaired).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4894 OF 2024
1) Smt.Hemlata Chandrabhushan Salame
Age @ 50 years, Occ - Housewife
R/o. Sundar Nagar, Brahmapuri,
Tq.Brahmpuri, Dist. Chandrapur
.. Petitioners
2) Raj Chandrabhushan Salame
Age @ 25 years, Occ - Labour,
R/o. Sundar Nagar, Brahmapuri,
Tq.Brahmpuri, Dist. Chandrapur
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary for Rural
Development Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
General Administrative Department, .. Respondents
Mantralaya, Mumbai
3) The Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur
4) The Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
Dist. Chandrapur
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. P.P.Pendke, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.
1 & 2.
Mr. S.V.Sohoni, Advocate for respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 29, 2025
PAGE 1 OF 5
-- 2 -- WP 4894.2024 (J) (Repaired).doc
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally,
with the consent of the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties.
(2) The petitioners are challenging the issuance of
communications dated 29/03/2023 and 03/05/2023 issued by
respondent No.4, which held that petitioner No.2 is not entitled to the
compassionate appointment and disqualified him as per the provisions
of Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 28/03/2001, as a third child
was born after 31/12/2001.
(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently
submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the
effects of the deemed date in clause (E) of G.R. dated 28/03/2001 in
Writ Petition No.2349/2023 and held that "date in clause (E) of the
G.R. dated 28/03/2001 be construed as 28.03.2002, i.e. one year from
the issuance of the said G.R." He further submitted that in view of the
judgment above, the petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed, as
on 11/03/2002 the third child was born to the petitioner No.1 and her
deceased husband i.e. employee of the respondent before the date
28.03.2002 as construed in the decision. Therefore, he urged for
allowing the petition.
PAGE 2 OF 5
-- 3 -- WP 4894.2024 (J) (Repaired).doc
(4) In response, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Pendke, appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and learned Counsel
Mr. Sohoni, appearing for respondent No.3, resisted the claim of the
petitioners on the ground that the petitioners' claim was rejected as the
third child was born to the deceased employee after issuance of G.R.
dated 28/03/2001. Likewise, other factors have to be considered when
deciding the petitioners' claim. Therefore, they urged for the dismissal
of the petition.
(5) We have appreciated the rival contentions of the learned
counsel and perused the record, G.R. dated 28/03/2001, and the
judgment dated 01/07/2024 in Writ Petition No.2349/2023.
(6) At the outset, it reveals that this Court, while considering
clause (E) in the said G.R., has held that "date in clause (E) of the G.R.
dated 28/03/2001 be construed as 28.03.2002, i.e. one year from the
issuance of the said G.R." Similarly, it is undisputed that on
11/03/2002 the third child was born to the petitioner No.1 and
deceased employee, i.e. before the date 28/03/2002 as construed in
the decision referred above, therefore, the date as interpreted in the
decision above, the petitioner No.2 cannot be held to be disentitled to
claim the relief as prayed.
PAGE 3 OF 5
-- 4 -- WP 4894.2024 (J) (Repaired).doc
(7) We have also gone through the impugned
communications dated 29/03/2023 and 03/05/2023; it seems that the
claim of the petitioners has been rejected solely on the ground that the
third child was born to the deceased employee after the issuance of the
G.R. dated 28/03/2001. Therefore, petitioner No.2 was held ineligible
for granting an appointment on compassionate grounds. However, in
view of the law laid down in Amol Hiralal Telrandhe vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.2349/2023 decided on
01/07/2024), we are of the opinion that the third child was born to
petitioner No.1 and deceased employee prior to the date construed by
this Court in the said judgment. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled
to claim the appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds.
Thus, the impugned communications dated 29/03/2003 and
03/05/2003 issued by respondent No.4 are liable to be held contrary to
what has been held in Writ Petition No.2349/2023 and, therefore,
cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law, and the same is liable to be
set aside.
(8) In the background above, we deem it appropriate to pass
the following order.:-
(i) The impugned communications dated 29/03/2023 and
03/05/2023 issued by respondent No.4 are hereby quashed
and set aside.
PAGE 4 OF 5
-- 5 -- WP 4894.2024 (J) (Repaired).doc
(ii) We direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue an appointment
order to petitioner No.2 if there is no impediment to doing
so in light of the policy applicable in that regard.
(iii) The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.] [AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 5 OF 5
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/01/2025 13:55:06
