← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4249/2024disposed off

Muktabai Narsaiyya Yengupatla And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2026-04-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice N. B. Suryawanshi , Hon'Ble Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav2 pages

2026:BHC-AUG:14450-DB 917 WRIT PETITION NO. 4249 OF 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 917 WRIT PETITION NO. 4249 OF 2024 MUKTABAI NARSAIYYA YENGUPATLA AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Adv. Kiran P. Rathod for the Petitioners Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for State Adv. Jiwan J. Patil for Respondent No. 3 ...

CORAM :

NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

DATE :

02.04.2026 P E R C O U R T :

1.

This petition filed by mother and differently abled brother of the deceased Anil Narsaiyya Yengupatla, who was serving as a police constable in the office of respondent No. 2 and who expired on 09.12.2019 while in service, seeks issuance of a writ of prohibition for any other appropriate writ to respondent No. 2, thereby restraining him from granting compassionate employment to respondent No. 3, the wife of deceased Anil. A further direction is sought to remove the name of respondent No. 3 from the waiting list of compassionate employment. 2.

It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 was the legally wedded wife of deceased Anil. The petitioners claim that there were disputes ksk/ 1/2

917 WRIT PETITION NO. 4249 OF 2024 between respondent No. 3 and deceased Anil and that some Court matters were going on. It is the case of the petitioners that they were fully dependent on the deceased and, therefore, the name of respondent No. 3 should be deleted from the list of compassionate employment. 3.

The petitioners have no legal right to claim that the wife of the deceased should be denied compassionate employment. Admittedly, petitioner No. 2 is major. Though he is differently abled, he should earn for himself and for his mother.

4.

We find no merit in the challenge raised by the petitioners. The reliefs sought are misconceived and cannot be granted. Writ Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] ksk/ 2/2