Ranjit S/O Ambadas Hiwale And Another v. Kuwarlal S/O Hiralal Wasnik And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:6882-DB 105-WP-2366-25.odt 1/1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2366 OF 2025 Ranjit S/o Ambadas Hiwale, Buldhana and anr.

-vsKuwarlal S/o Hiralal Wasnik, Tahsil and District Amravati and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and the Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Rahul Vyawahare, Advocate for petitioners. Shri Madhur Deo, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri N. S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 to 5. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : July 17, 2025 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2.

In the petition, challenge is to the order dated 07/10/2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has directed the respondents to pay family pension and other terminal benefits to the original applicant, respondent No.1 herein.

3.

The petitioners claim to be the nephews of one Smt Alka Wasnik who was married to respondent No.1 who was the applicant before the Tribunal. 4.

The Tribunal having regard to the status of respondent No.1 as Class-I heir was pleased to pass the order directing release of benefits in favour of respondent No.1.

5.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal ought not be have gone into the issue and the order is without jurisdiction cannot be said to be substantiated by any legal foundation as the respondent No.1 admittedly falls in the category of Class-I heir. 6.

Apart from above, the petitioners have not contested the litigation on merits before the Tribunal.

7.

That being so, no case for causing interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made. The petition as such stands dismissed. No costs. (Sachin S. Deshmukh, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.) Asmita