Sangita Deepak Sathe And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:26348 1 952.WP.14595.21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.14595 OF 2021 SANGITA DEEPAK SATHE AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay Addl. G.P. for Respondents: Mr. S.K. Tambe ...

CORAM

: MANISH PITALE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 23.09.2025 PER COURT:

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. We do not find merit in the present petition for the reason that even if the recommendations of the Lad-Page Committee are to be applied to the facts of the present case, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 2.

It is undisputed that the mother of the person to whom the petitioner No.1 claims to have been married, was the employee. She retired and as per the Scheme she could nominate one person of the family for employment. She nominated a lady who was stated to be the wife of her son.

3.

The petitioner No.1 also claims to be the wife of that person. It is also claimed that the said person in whose favour the original

2 952.WP.14595.21.odt employee had made a nomination had to retire due to disability. The petitioner No.1 now claims that her son should be given employment on the basis of the said scheme in place of the aforementioned lady who had taken retirement due to disability.

4.

These admitted facts, according to us, demonstrate that the petitioners are not eligible for the benefit of the scheme contemplated as per the recommendations of the Lad - Page Committee and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) habeeb/