Mayur Khemchand Waghela And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary, Medical Edu. And Drugs Dept. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3488 OF 2024

1. Mayur Khemchand Waghela, Aged 33 years, Occu-Service, residing at Flat No.19, RMO Quarters, Sir J.J. Hospital, Mumbai.

2. Khemchand A. Waghela, Aged 57 years, Occu-Service residing at Flat No.19, RMO Quarters, Sir J.J. Hospital, Mumbai.

...Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Dept., New Administrative Building, 9th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

2. The Director/Secretary, Medical Education & Research, Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Byculla, Mumbai-400 008.

3. Grant Government College &

Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, through its Dean, Byculla, Mumbai-400 008.

4. The Administrative Officer, Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Byculla, Mumbai-400 008.

5. Manali Dinesh Chauhan, Aged 27 years, residing at E-Block, Room No.3, Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Byculla, Mumbai-400 008.

...Respondents

Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam i/b. Ms. Sonali G. Sase, for the Petitioners. Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4-State.

Mr. Om M. Lonkar a/w Ms. Advaita M. Lonkar, for the Respondent No.5.

CORAM :

SUMAN SHYAM & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

RESERVED ON :

29TH SEPTEMBER 2025.

PRONOUNCED ON :

10TH OCTOBER 2025 JUDGMENT :- (PER MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally with the consent of parties.

2.

In this Writ Petition, the decision in respect of competing claims made by the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.5 in Original Application No.390 of 2022, decided by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short " the MAT"), vide order dated 12.10.2023, is challenged by the Petitioners. 3.

The Petitioner No.1 is the nephew, while the Petitioner No.2 is the brother of the deceased Employee Naresh Waghela, who was employed as a Sweeper in Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals and Grant Medical College, Mumbai, who died in harness on 16.01.2021 whereas the Respondent No.5 is the daughter of the sister of the deceased Employee Naresh Waghela. One is nephew while the other is niece of deceased Naresh Waghela, who was in employment of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

4.

The Application filed by the Petitioner No.1 for his claim to be appointed in place of his uncle as his heir was rejected by the Respondents vide Communications dated 30.03.2021 and 21.05.2021. His Application was rejected on the ground that, deceased Employee Naresh Waghela, has nominated the Respondent No.5-Manali Dinesh Chauhan by making entry to that effect in his Service Book. Being aggrieved by the impugned Communications dated 30.03.2021 and 21.05.2021, the Petitioner No.1 challenged the decision of the Respondents rejecting his claim for appointment in place of his uncle before the MAT, Mumbai. 5.

The learned Member, MAT, vide its Judgment dated 12.10.2023, has dismissed the Original Application No.390 of 2022 filed by the Petitioners holding that the Respondent No.5 was residing with the deceased maternal uncle, as seen from her

address on the Aadhar Card; even as per the Service Book, she has been nominated as the legal heir of the deceased Employee. Therefore, referring to clauses 1 (d) and (u) of the Government Resolution ("GR") dated 10.11.2015, the Original Application filed by the Petitioner No.1 has been dismissed by holding that he does not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the GR dated 10.11.2015. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2023, passed by the MAT in Original Application No.390 of 2022, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

6.

Mr. Abhijeet Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that, the uncle of the Petitioner late Naresh Waghela was appointed as a Sweeper, who expired on 16.01.2021, while serving the Respondents. His uncle was the only earning Member of their joint family. Therefore, in view of the policy decision of the Government as provided in the GR dated 10.11.2015, his client had filed Application for appointment in place of his uncle on 23.03.2021 and 06.05.2021. 7.

According to the policy decision of the State Government, the legal heir of the deceased Employee, who expire/retire during the service, are entitled for appointment, subject to fulfillment of necessary conditions. The uncle of Petitioner No.1 Naresh Waghela died issueless. As such, the Petitioner No.1, in his capacity of legal heir, as nephew residing in a joint family, filed an Application with a prayer to appoint him.

8.

Due to rejection of Application filed by Petitioner No.1, he approached the MAT by filing Original Application No.390 of 2022. In the Original Application, he has added the Respondent No.5 as a party to the proceedings, since she had made a competing claim.

9.

It is submitted that, the claim of the Respondent No.5 before the Tribunal was that, she has been nominated by late Naresh Waghela himself, by making an entry to that effect in his Service Book and she has also obtained Heirship Certificate from the District Collector. Hence, she had a better claim as compared to the present Petitioners. Accepting the claim of the Respondent No.5, the learned Member, MAT, has rejected his Original Application by the order dated 12.10.2023.

10.

It is submitted that during the pendency of Original Application No.390 of 2022 itself, the Petitioners had filed an Application before the District Collector challenging the Heirship Certificate issued in favour of the Respondent No.5. After hearing the Petitioners, the Tahsildar "E" Division, Entertainment Branch, Mumbai, issued notice to the Respondent No.5. After hearing the parties, the Tahsildar E-Division Entertainment Branch, Mumbai, cancelled the Heirship Certificate issued in favour of the Respondent No.5 vide order dated 20.12.2023.

11.

The order dated 20.12.2023 cancelling the Heirship Certificate issued in favour of the Respondent No.5 was passed subsequent to the order passed by the MAT dated 12.10.2023. According to the Petitioners, in view of the cancellation of the Heirship Certificate issued in favour of the Respondent No.5, the Petitioner no. 1 has a better claim over the Respondent No.5. As such, it is one of the grounds of challenge of the order passed by the MAT.

12.

Mr. Abhijeet Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that as per the GR dated 10.11.2015, more

particularly, clause 1 (u), provides that the Application for employment in place of the deceased Employee is required to be filed by the eligible member of family, nominated by him accompanied with Heirship Certificate within 1 year. In the present case, the Heirship Certificate of the Respondent No.5 has been cancelled. Therefore, the Respondent No.5 is disqualified from claiming appointment on compassionate ground. 13.

It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Respondent No.5-Manali Dinesh Chauhan is the niece of Naresh Waghela, who is already married. Therefore, she is not eligible to be appointed as a legal heir of his uncle Naresh Waghela. The Petitioner in his capacity of the son of brother of the deceased, has a better claim over the Respondent No.5, and he is the only legal heir, eligible to be appointed in his place. According to him, the Respondent No.5Manali Dinesh Chauhan got married on 20.07.2017 and therefore, ceased to be the Family Member of the deceased Naresh Waghela. 14.

Though the MAT has rejected his Original Application No.390 of 2022, on the ground that the Respondent No.5 has been nominated by Naresh Waghela, however, the Service Book of Naresh Waghela is incomplete and after verification, it is found that it is not properly filled in. Even the nominee is not properly registered. The signature of Naresh Waghela verified in the Service Book and other books differ. All these aspects of the Service Book were not at all taken into consideration by the MAT, while passing the impugned order, resulting in miscarriage of justice, which requires interference by this Court.

15.

Per contra, Mr. Lonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 submits that late Naresh Waghela was residing with the Respondent No.5 and her mother in the Government Quarter, Room No.3, E-Block, Sir J.J. Hospital Compound, Byculla, Mumbai. He had nominated the Respondent No.5 as his legal heir by making entry in the Service Book. Though the Respondent No.5 was married to one Shrikant Ramugade on 20.07.2017, however, she was divorced in November, 2019. Since then she has been residing with her mother and the deceased maternal uncle Naresh Waghela in the Government Quarter. The address on the Aadhar Card of the Respondent No.5, her mother and uncle is one and the same, which supports her claim.

16.

It is submitted that the address given by the Applicant in the Original Application is Flat No.19, RMO Quarters, Sir J.J. Hospital, Mumbai and in the Aadhar Card, the address is mentioned as Virar, Vasai, District Thane. The perusal of the address would clearly indicate that the Applicant was not residing with the deceased Employee. Merely because at some point of time the Respondent No.5 was married, cannot be a ground to deny her rightful claim to be appointed in place of her maternal uncle, more particularly, in view of her nomination made by him.

17.

Reliance is placed on Clauses 1 (d) and (u) of the GR dated 10.11.2015, which contemplates that the aspirant Applicant should be residing with the deceased Employee and an Application seeking appointment as a legal heir should be made within one year of the death of such Employee. Since she was residing with the deceased Employee; she has been nominated by him. The

Heirship Certificate issued by the Collector, Mumbai in her favour on 23.06.2021, supported her eligibility as prescribed in the GR dated 10.11.2015. Only after taking into consideration the rival claims of the parties, the documents placed on record by the respective parties and after recording its satisfaction, the learned Member of the MAT has passed a reasoned order rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.

18.

Mr. Walimbe, learned Addl. G.P. appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4-State relying on the affidavit filed by the Special Executive Officer, in the Office of Dean, Grant Medical College, Mumbai, in Original Application No.390 of 2022, submits that deceased Naresh Waghela was working as Safaigar from 01.09.2024 till his death. Initially, he has named his mother Smt. Kashibai Waghela as his nominee, but after her death, he was residing with his sister, namely, Smt. Manjula Waghela and his divorced niece Smt. Manali Dinesh Chauhan. He has replaced the name of Manali Dinesh Chauhan, after death of his mother, as his nominee. After death of Naresh Waghela, his nominee Smt. Manali Dinesh Chauhan submitted an Application on 01.02.

2021 claiming the post-death terminal benefits as well as Application for appointment on the post of Safaigar in capacity of legal heir of Naresh Waghela, as per the existing policy contained in the GR dated 10.11.2015. A rival claim was also made by Khemchand Waghela brother of deceased Naresh Waghela by submitting Application for appointment of his son Mayur Khemchand Waghela in place of Naresh Waghela as his legal heir. The documents submitted by Mayur Khemchand Waghela, i.e.

Waghela. Hence, his Applications dated 30.03.2021 and 21.05.2021 came to be rejected in the light of GR dated 10.11.2015.

19.

We have heard the respective parties and we have also perused the memo of the Writ Petition alongwith its annexures and reply filed by the respective parties.

20.

The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.10.2023, passed by the MAT, primarily on the ground that, the Petitioner No.1 has priority over any other claims being a Member of joint family, of late Naresh Waghela. A categorical averment is made in Paragraph No.4 of the Writ Petition that, Naresh Waghela was the only earning Member of their joint family. Due to his death, the Petitioner No.1 being the only legal heir was entitled to be appointed in place of his uncle as per the policy decision contained in the GR dated 10.11.2015. Since deceased Naresh Waghela had died issueless, the Petitioner No.1 had a priority over any other claim. Similarly, the Respondent No.5 has also made a claim contending that, she alongwith her mother were residing with deceased Naresh Waghela in the Government Quarters, which was supported with the address mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the Respondent No.5 Naresh Waghela.

21.

Undisputedly, the Respondent No.5 has been appointed as a nominee by deceased Naresh Waghela by making entry to that effect in his Service Book. Having been appointed as a nominee, she has a better claim over anybody else to be appointed in place of deceased Naresh Waghela, as per the existing policy.

22.

The GR dated 10.11.2015, provides for the eligibility and the procedure for appointment, by way of a Heirship in place of a Safaigar, who either, expires; or is forced to retire on medical grounds. The condition in Clause 1 (d) provides that, the person, who makes an Application should be a family Member, who is residing with the family of the deceased Employee. Similarly, one other condition in Clause 1 (u) provides that, a person who is nominated by the deceased person shall have right to make an Application to the Competent Authority within a period of one year from the death of such person.

23.

Though the Petitioner No.1 is claiming that he fulfills all the necessary eligibility conditions, therefore, he should be appointed in place of his late uncle, the fact remains that, from the documents placed on record, it can be discerned that the condition of sharing residence with the family of the deceased Employee is not fulfilled by the Petitioner No.1. The address shown by him in the title clause, clearly indicates that he is residing in Flat No.19, RMO Quarters, Sir J.J. Hospital, Mumbai, alongwith his father. The address mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the Respondent No.5, her mother and the deceased uncle is one and the same. They are residing as a family, whereas the address given by the Petitioners differs from the address of the deceased Naresh Waghela. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner No.1 that he is Member of the joint family of the deceased Naresh Waghela does not appear to be correct. Consequently, the condition (d) mentioned in Clause

(1) of the GR dated 10.11.2015, is not fulfilled by the Petitioners. Even condition 1 (u) is not fulfilled by the Petitioners since the nomination is made in favour of the Respondent No.5.

24.

Though the Petitioners have disputed the entries made in the Service Book of the deceased, however, fact remains that the Respondent No.5 has been nominated by the deceased Naresh Waghela, who has a better claim over the Petitioners. Though the Petitioner No.1 has raised objection by pointing out that, the legal heir Certificate issued by the District Collector, Mumbai, in favour of the Respondent No.5 has been cancelled vide order dated 20.12.2023, however, fact remains that, the common residence shared by the Respondent No.5 with deceased Naresh Waghela, makes the Respondent No.5 eligible to be appointed as a legal heir of late Naresh Waghela. Though the Heirship Certificate were cancelled on a subsequent date after the orders were passed by the MAT, however, the reply affidavit filed by the Respondent No.

5 contains a categorical averment that she intends to file an Appeal before the Deputy Collector, Mumbai, against the order passed by the Tahsildar cancelling her Heirship Certificate vide order dated 20.12.2023 by invoking Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Even otherwise, the Respondent No.5 in our view, has a better claim over the Petitioner No.1 in view of her nomination made by the deceased Employee, and the shared common residence.

25.

The learned Member, MAT, has rightly taken into consideration the scheme as provided by the GR dated 10.11.2015 and the competing claims made by the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.5 in its proper perspective. After taking into consideration the respective Applications and supporting documents filed by the parties, the learned Member, MAT, has refused to interfere with the impugned order of rejection of the

claim of the Petitioner No.1 vide Communications dated 30.03.2021 and 21.05.2021. We do not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the order dated 12.10.2023, passed by the MAT. The learned Member, MAT has rightly considered Clauses 1 (d) and 1 (u) of the GR dated 10.11.2015, to hold that the Respondent No.5 fulfills the conditions while the Petitioner No.1 does not fulfill the two conditions. As a result of which, he is not eligible to be appointed as a legal heir of the deceased Naresh Waghela. 26.

The order dated 12.10.2023 being a well-reasoned one, we do not find any scope for causing interference with the same. The Respondent Authority are at liberty to consider the claim of the Respondent No.5 by adhering to the eligibility conditions and procedure laid down in the GR dated 10.11.2015 and pass appropriate orders.

27.

Since no ground for interference is made out by the Petitioners, Rule is discharged.

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)