JYOTI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of both sides heard finally.

(2.) By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who is a married sister of deceased employeeShri Gulab Mahajan, has put-forth Prayer Clauses (A), (B) and (C) as under:

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner vehemently canvassed that, the Petitioner's deceased brother Shri Gulab Mahajan was serving as Assistant with Respondent No.3- Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Jalgaon. However, on 29/7/2020, the Petitioner's brother died in harness. Smt. Suman Mahajan and Shri Raghunath Mahajan, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively, are her old aged parents. The Petitioner and her another brother Ravindra, are married. Her married brother is residing separately with his family. The Petitioner's sister Kavita Mahajan has renounced the world. The Petitioner got married with one Ganesh More. Out of the wedlock, the Petitioner is blessed with two children. The Petitioner's parents were residing with her deceased brother Gulab Mahajan, however, due to death of her brother, no one is looking after her old aged parents and the Petitioner is taking all care of her parents, who were solely depending on the income of the deceased Gulab. The Petitioner's deceased brother was unmarried. Therefore, on 19/11/2020, 2/7/2021, 27/7/2021 and 10/8/2021, the Petitioner submitted applications to Respondent No.3 and prayed for appointment on compassionate ground in place of her deceased brother Gulab. However, on 16/1/2023, Respondent No.3 Divisional Controller passed the impugned order and turned down Petitioner's request because she is a married sister of deceased employee and therefore, as per Office Order No. 5/994, the Petitioner does not fall within the definition of family. Further, she was not dependent on the income of the deceased employee, hence, she is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, even the married daughter and sister are entitled for appointment on compassionate basis, however, the Respondent No. 3 has illegally rejected application of the Petitioner. Therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order.