Madhura Gulab Kachave And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

1 1000WP11420.2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1000 WRIT PETITION NO. 11420 OF 2022 Madhura Gulab Kachave And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others ...

Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh h/f Mr. A. D. Kawre - Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya - AGP for State ...

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

DATED : 16TH JULY, 2025 ORAL ORDER [Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] : - 1.

Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which are the Management and School where the Petitioner was working.

2.

The husband of Petitioner No. 1 was working with Respondent No. 5 - School, which is managed by Respondent No. 4. The husband of Petitioner No.1 died on 19.04.2021. According to Petitioner No. 1, her husband died due to a Covid-19 infection. The Proposal for family pension was rejected by Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the School in which the Petitioner was working was not getting 100% grant-in-aid. According to the learned Advocate for the

2 1000WP11420.2022.odt Petitioners, the case of the Petitioners is covered by the Government Resolution dated 31.03.2023, which is placed at page No. 45 of the Affidavit-in-Rejoinder.

3.

The matter was adjourned for instructions by the learned AGP. The learned AGP tenders across the bar a copy of communication dated 15th July, 2025, addressed to the office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The copies of Government Resolutions dated 27th December, 2024 and 24th February, 2025 are enclosed with the said communication, which are taken on record. It is submitted by the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that, the case of the Petitioners is covered by the Government Resolution dated 31.03.2023, as supplemented by the above referred Government Resolution and Corrigendum. He submits that the case of the Petitioners for family pension has been sent to the office of the Accountant General, Nagpur, for processing.

4.

In view of the above undisputed aspects, we expect that the Accountant General, Nagpur, shall process the petitioner's case for family pension as expeditiously as possible.

5.

Petition is, accordingly, disposed off.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [R. G. AVACHAT] JUDGE JUDGE SG Punde