Shyamrao Baburao Shirke (Since Decd) Throuogh, Shakauntala Shyamrao Shirke v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Higher And Technical Education Dept And ORS

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3648 of 2015.

Shyamrao Baburao Shirke .... Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors .... Respondents Mr. Manoj Patil a/with Mr. Y.B. Lengre i/by Mrs. Suman Y. Lengare for the Petitioner.

Mr. P.P. More, AGP for Respondent No. 1 and 2. Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam for Respondent No. 3 and 4. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT.BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.

DATE : 9 th OCTOBER, 2017.

P.C. :

We have heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, at a great length and with his assistance we have perused the papers.

In writ jurisdiction we grant reliefs, provided a case is made out in accordance with law. We cannot grant any relief purely on equity and sympathy for both go together with law. The Petitioner's husband joined the services of third respondent management as a peon on 1st August, 1984 and retired on 31st May, 2005. He expired on 6th August, 2005. He, according to the petitioner, rendered 21 years of service.

1/3

The petitioner is now claiming and after the death of that employee that he was entitled to pension and allied benefits. The petitioner is aware that the deceased employee was aged 39 years and 2 moths as on 1st August, 1984. During his service, deceased employee made no attempt to obtain any relief for himself including relaxation of the condition of age. His services could have been considered for promotion provided in terms of certain Government Resolutions and the Civil Services (provisions of upper age limit for recruitment by nomination) Rules, 1986, there was a provision to relax it. The Management may have tried to help him and seeking to apply this Government Resolution but it is apparent that the case was not accepted by the Government. The communication at page 46 is but a continuation of the Government's stand throughout that the deceased cannot be extended any benefit in terms of the Government Resolution.

The deceased was satisfied with this position but after his death we do not see how the petitioner can obtain any relief. The reliefs were personal in nature to the deceased. They could not be obtained by the heirs and legal representatives and all the more when such grievances could have been redressed only while in service. 2/3

In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned letter and even as a special case as requested by Mr Patil. We do not think that we can set a precedent by directing the Government to treat any case of this nature as a special case when the law does not permit it to do so. No writ can go contrary to law and all the more in writ jurisdiction, we cannot by pass or subvert the law. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. It is dismissed. No costs.

[SMT.BHARATI H.DANGRE, J.] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 3/3