(1) 3-WP-6244-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6244/2026 MRUNALI D/O SANJAY LAJURKAR VS STATE OF MAHA., THR. SEC. DEPT. OF RURAL DEV. AND PANCHAYTRAJ AND ORS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.H. Nagrale, Advocate for the Petitioner (s). Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP, for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Vipin M. Lute, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Prashant H. Khobragade, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026. 1. On the previous date, i.e. on 17.08.2026, the following order was passed : “ Heard. Leave to correct prayer clause (A) by replacing “respondent no. 4” by “respondent no. 3” is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader shall take note of the amendment. The prayer is to direct respondent no. 3 to decide the application dated 10-7-2024 seeking compassionate appointment. This is yet another case where application/representation has been not dealt with in terms of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act of 2005’). The respondent no. 2 shall enquire into the matter and take appropriate action against respondent no. 3 in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2005, more particularly, Section 10 thereof. Issue notice accordingly, made returnable on 8-9-2026. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice for the State/respondent no. 1. In the meantime, respondent no. 3 shall decide the application dated 10-7-2024, strictly in accordance with law and shall also furnish explanation as to why application was kept pending for all these days. Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:11875-DB (2) 3-WP-6244-2026 The petitioner is permitted to serve remaining respondents by all permissible modes, including service by Speed Post and shall file affidavit of service.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 submits that the decision has been taken. 3. Copy of the decision has been served upon the petitioner, which status, the petitioner’s counsel is not disputing. 4. That being so, the purpose of filing petition stands served. 5. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of remedy as is available in law as regards decision taken by Respondent No.3. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya