1 wp7156.22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 7156 OF 2022 ( Deepa d/o Vasant Bhagat ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.U. Ghude, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 6, Mr. B.N. Mohta, Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr. Aditya Chaudhari, Counsel for respondent No.4, Mr. U.P. Dable, Counsel for respondent No.5. CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 05-03-2025 Mr. Ghude, learned Counsel for the petitioner, makes a statement that a communication dated 16-4-2016 (Page No. 184) addressed by the Chief Engineer, MSEB, Koradi to the Chief General Manager, Bombay, recommends the name of the petitioner Ku. Deepa Vasant Bhagat to be employed as a Safai Kamgar. When a query was put to Mr. Ghude, learned Counsel for the petitioner, regarding what has happened in pursuance to this communication, he makes a statement that it was never received by the petitioner. Mr. Dable, learned Counsel for respondent No.5, on the contrary, submits that in pursuance to the said recommendation, the petitioner has refused to join the said establishment. 2025:BHC-NAG:2237-DB 2 wp7156.22 2. The entire thing revolves around the policy dated 21-10-2011, under the terms of which the spouse, daughter/ daughter-in-law, unmarried daughter, widow/divorced daughter/divorced sister were entitled to be granted an employment as a Safai Kamgar. Clause 1(a)(6) of the aforesaid G.R. mandates, that in case, if any of the persons from categories 1 to 5, as indicated above were not available, then a near relation or a nominated person, who had given an undertaking in writing to look after such employee, would be entitled for such employment. 3. It is based upon this clause that Mr. Ghude, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner is the unmarried daughter of the respondent No.4-Vasant Bhagat, in terms of the aforesaid policy, she would be entitled to be granted employment. 4 Mr. Dable, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5, submits, that respondent No.5, who is a married daughter, nominated by the respondent No.4, and who has since been appointed as a Safai Kamgar by the respondent No.3- Corporation, justifies the appointment on the ground that the 3 wp7156.22 petitioner and the respondent No.4 are on inimical terms since last several years and have not been residing together. The petitioner is residing with the estranged wife of the respondent No.4 and not with him. He, therefore, submits that even though the petitioner, may fall into Category 3 in clause 1(a) of the G.R. dated 21-10-2011, considering the purpose and import of the G.R., the nomination by the respondent No.4 of the respondent No.5, would be justified. 5. Mr. Mohta, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, supports the appointment of the respondent No.5 as a Clerk based upon the nomination by the respondent No.4, which is so instead being appointed as a Safai Kamgar, on the basis of the educational qualification of the respondent No.5 and further relies upon clause 1(d) of the aforesaid G.R. dated 21-10-2011, in support of his contention. 6. The relevant clauses of the aforesaid G.R. dated 21-10-2011, which require consideration are as under ; ^¼1½ uxj fodkl foHkkxkus okjlk gDdkckcr fuxZfer dsysY;k ‘kklu fu.kZ;@ifji=dkrhy izeq[k rjrqnh [kkyhyizek.ks vkgsr & ¼v½ uxjikfydk@egkuxjikfydke/khy lQkbZ dkexkjkauk R;kaP;k fuo`Rrhuarj e`R;quarj] LosPNk fuo`Rrhuarj fdaok oS|dh;n`”V;k vik= BjfoY;kuarj R;kaP;kk tkxh okjlk gDdkus 4 wp7156.22 fu;qDrh dj.;kr ;koh& lnj okjlk gDdklkBh [kkyhy O;Drh ik= Bjfo.;kr vkY;k vkgsr & 1- irh@iRuh 2- eqyxk@lqu 3- vfookfgr eqyxh 4- fo/kok@?kVLQksfVr eqyxh 5- fo/kok@?kVLQksfVr cgh.k 6- ojhyiSdh dks.khgh okjl miyC/k ulY;kl R;kapk lkaHkkG dj.;kph ys[kh geh ?ks.kkjh toGph ukrsokbZd fdaok ukefunsZf’kr O;Drh- ¼c½ lQkbZ deZpk&;kP;k dqVaqckrhy irh@iRuh fdaok eqyxk ‘kkldh;@fue’kkldh; LFkkfud LojkT; laLFksP;k lsosr vlY;kl okjl gDdkP;k fu;ekl ck/kk ;s.kkj ukgh- ¼d½ okjlk gDdkl ik= vl.kk&;k O;DrhiSdh dks.kkgh ,dkl fuo`Rr@LosPNk fuo`Rr@oS|dh;n`”V;k vik= lsodkP;k f’kQkj’khuqlkj uksdjh gDd |kok] ek= e`r lsodkP;k ckcrhr ¼v½ e/khy ik= O;DrhaP;k la;qDr laerhi=kus R;kiSdh ,dkl uksdjhl ?;kos- ¼M½ okjlkl ik= vl.kkjh O;Drh R;kp dqVaqckr jgkr vl.ks vko’;d vkgs- ¼b½ lQkbZ dkexkj uksdjh djhr vlrkuk R;kyk prqFkZ Js.khrp inksérh feGkY;kl okjlk gDdkP;k fu;ekl ck/kk ;s.kkj ukgh- ¼bZ½ okjlk gDdkph izdj.ks 30 fnolkP;k vkr fudkyh dk<.;kr ;kohr- ¼Q½ lQkbZ deZpkjh fnoaxr fdaok lsokfuo`Rr vxj fodykax >kY;kP;k fnukadkiklwu 1 o”kkZP;k eqnrhr lQkbZ deZpk&;kP;k ik= dqVawfc;kadMwu ukefunsZf’kr dsysY;k okjlnkj O;Drhus l{ke izkf/kdk&;kadMs okjlkgDdkus fu;qDrh dj.;kdjhrk vtZ lknj dj.ks vko’;d jkghy- ¼Å½ vkd`rhca/kkeqGs rlsp] LFkk;h@vLFkk;h inkeqGs dks.kR;kgh lQkbZ dkexkjkaP;k okjlkgDdkP;k fu;qDrhckcr vMp.k fuekZ.k gks.kkj ukgh- rlsp] lQkbZ dkexkjkaP;k ckcrhr fuo`Rr@e;r >kysY;k deZpk&;kaP;k tkxh okjlkgDdkus deZpkjh ykxr vlY;keqGs ,dw.k deZpkjh ok<r ukgh- R;keqGs vkd`rhca/kkph vV okjlkgDdkiqjrh ykx.kkj ukgh- ojhyizek.ks uxj fodkl foHkkx o lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkxkus fuxZfrr dsysY;k vkns’kkr uewn dsysY;k rjrwnhaP;k vk/kkjs lQkbZ dkexkjkaP;k okjlk gDdkckcrph izdj.ks fudkyh dk<.;kph dk;Zokgh ‘kklukP;k loZ foHkkxkadMwu o R;kaP;k vf/kuLr vlysY;k dk;kZy;kadMwu dj.;kr ;koh- fuo`Rr@LosPNkfuo`Rr@e;r@oS|dh;n`”V;k vik= BjysY;k lQkbZ deZpk&;kaP;k lacaf/kr dk;kZy;kus R;kaP;k dk;kZy;hu vkns’kkr 5 wp7156.22 okjlk gDdkckcrP;k rjrwnh uewn djkO;kr- lQkbZ dkexkj ;k inkoj okjlk gDdkus fu;qDrh gh okjlnkjkus dsysY;k vtkZP;k vuq”kaxkus FksV fu;qDrh nsrk ;srs- rFkkfi] lQkbZ deZpk&;kaph ins miyC/k ulY;kl okjlnkjkph ‘kS{kf.kd vgZrk fopkjkr ?ksÅu vU; inkoj ¼oxZ&3½ fu;qDrh |ko;kph >kY;kl lacaf/kr dk;kZy;kP;k fu;qDrh izkf/kdk&;kauh ‘kklu ifji=d] lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx] fnukad 1@10@2003 vUo;s R;kauk cgky dj.;kr vkysY;k vf/kdkjkarxZr dk;Zokgh djkoh-* 7. Though the policy dated 21-10-2011, indicates the categories of persons, who are said to be eligible to be considered for appointment as indicated in clause 1(a)(1) to (5), however, clause 6, indicates that in case none of the persons, as enumerated in clause 1(a) (1 to 5) is available, then a person who has given an undertaking, to look after the retired employee, would be granted employment upon the nomination of such person. It cannot be disputed, that the petitioner, being the unmarried daughter, is covered by category 1(a)(3) of the aforesaid G.R., however, what is also necessary to note is that clause 1(d) of the said GR, also makes it necessary that such a person, should be residing with the erstwhile employee. A perusal of the cause title of the petition, would indicate that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are not residing at the same place but are residing at different places. The petition, also do not indicate a position 6 wp7156.22 otherwise as there does not appear to be any averment in the petition in this regard. Even though Court may have sympathy for the petitioner, however, the Court has to follow the letter of the law and considering the fact that there is nothing on record, to indicate that the petitioner has been residing with the respondent No.4, the provisions of clause 1(d) would clearly be attracted in the matter. As against this, the respondent No.5, though a married daughter, has been nominated by the respondent No.4 and has also given an undertaking on 31-8-2021 (Page 396) before her appointment on 03-11-2022 to the effect that she is residing with the respondent No.4 and would be taking care of the need of the respondent No.4. The cause title of the petition in fact substantiates the position of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 residing together as their address is the same. The position is also stated to have been verified by the officials of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 according to Mr. Mohta learned counsel appearing for them. 8. In that view of the matter, we are unable to agree with the claim of the petitioner that she is the only person, who is entitled, to be appointed as a Safai Kamgar, on 7 wp7156.22 account of the retirement of the respondent No.4 on 31-5-2019, as she does not satisfy the criteria as indicated in clause 1(d) of the GR dated 21-11-2011, apart from the fact that she has not been nominated by respondent No.4. We, therefore, do not see any reason to entertain the petition, the same is dismissed. No costs. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) adgokar