Smt. Yashodhara Wd/O Vijayrao Talware And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary Rural Devpt. Dept., Mumbai And ORS

2026:BHC-NAG:2390-DB 928 wp 2803-2025.odt 1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2803 OF 2025 1.

Smt. Yashodhara wd/o Vijayrao Talware Age: 54 Years, Occu: Nil R/o: Nalanda Nagar Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal 2.

Tejas s/o Vijayrao Talware Age: 19 Years, Occu: Education R/o: Nalanda Nagar Tq. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2.

The Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal Through its Chief Executive Officer 3.

The Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal Through its Deputy Chief Executive Officer, (General Admiration Dept.) ...RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.J. Topale, Advocate for petitioners Ms H.S. Dhande, AGP for respondent/State Shri V.M. Kulsange, Advocate for respondent No.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

928 wp 2803-2025.odt 2/3

CORAM

:

SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE :

11.02 .2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

) Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.

3.

The present petition seeks a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 20.01.2025 and the reminder dated 05.03.2025 made by the petitioner No.1 within the stipulated period.

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the said representation being pending since long, no action has been taken on the said representation, thereby great prejudice is caused to him.

5.

Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners were not entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment since the petitioner No.1 has crossed the age bar of 45 years and therefore no substitution was permissible in view of the

928 wp 2803-2025.odt 3/3 Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kalpana Taram Vs. State of Maharashtra. Be that as it may, Shri Kulsange, learned Counsel, fairly concedes that the representations mentioned supra have not been decided as yet. Be that as it may, in the above circumstances, we think it fit to dispose of the petition by directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 20.01.2025 and the reminder dated 05.03.2025, within three weeks from the date of this order. The petitioners to appear before the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 16.02.2026 and to apprise the said respondents of the said order. Needless to mention that we have not commented upon the merits of the representation of the matter, and respondents are free to decide it in accordance with law.

6.

The writ petition is disposed of.

7.

Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Jayashree..