Bombay High CourtWP/4784/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Nitin Shrikant Jadhao v. The State Of Maha. Through The Secretary, Urban Devp. Dept. And Others

2016-03-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.N. Deshmukh2 pages

1003wp4784.15.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4784 OF 2015 (Nitin Shrikant Jadhao Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G. R. Kothari, Adv. H/f Shri V. R. Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Smt. K. S.Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Ranjit Singh, Adv. H/f Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent No.3.

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : 10 MARCH, 2016 Heard.

During hearing, we find that the Municipal Council, Washim (respondent No.3) has forwarded the proposal on 21/02/2014 to the Director of Municipal Administration (respondent No.2) for considering grant of employment to the petitioner on compassionate basis. Copy of that representation is available on record of the learned A.G.P.

Father of the petitioner had joined employment of Municipal Council, Washim in the year 1989 and expired in 2009 while in employment. It appears that he was at some point of time absorbed in Public Health Department of the State Government.

1003wp4784.15.odt 2/2 In this situation, the Municipal Council, Washim has very fairly kept one post vacant to satisfy the claim of the petitioner.

Interest of justice therefore could be met with by directing respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision on the said proposal within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to his office. If necessary, said Authority could also hear the petitioner to find out the correct facts.

With the above directions and keeping all rival contentions open, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE wwl