2026:BHC-NAG:466-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.7876 OF 2023 [The State of Maharashtra and Another ..Vs.. Smt. Vaishali Hemant Pal and Another]

______________________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Shri. Aalap V. Palshikar, AGP for Petitioners/State. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DATE : 9 ^th JANUARY, 2026 .

. Heard Shri. Aalap V. Palshikar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners seek challenge to the impugned judgment dated 02.01.2023 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Original Application No.236 of 2022.

3. The aforesaid original application was filed by the respondents herein seeking a direction to the petitioner No.2 to include the name of respondent No.2 in the list of eligible candidates for appointment on compassionate grounds maintained by the respondent Department in place of his mother i.e. the respondent No.1, within a time-bound period, in the interest of justice. The relevant facts necessary for deciding the present writ petition are as follows :

3.1. The husband of respondent No.1 was working as a police constable with petitioner No.2. He died in harness on 04.04.2007. On the death of her husband, respondent No.1 applied for appointment on compassionate grounds immediately in the year 2007 itself. However, the petitioners could not provide her the appointment on compassionate basis and consequently, respondent No.1 completed her age of 45 years on 09.06.2020, whereupon her name was removed from the waiting list for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, respondent No.1 applied for substitution of the name of her son i.e. respondent No.2 in her place by filing an application dated 09.12.2020, which came to be rejected by petitioner No.2 citing the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017. According to the present petitioners (the original respondents), the provisions of the aforesaid Government Resolution do not permit such substitution.

3.2. When the aforesaid original application was heard by the learned Tribunal, the learned counsel for the respondents (original applicants) relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. 381. In the said judgment, this Court had taken a view that such substitution of name was permissible. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application and has directed the present petitioners to substitute the name of respondent No.2 in place of the name of respondent No.1 in the same seniority waiting list for appointment on compassionate grounds and to provide the employment as per the rules, within a period of three months from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. Shri. Palshikar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners, submits that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of Clause 3.1.1 and Clause 3.2.1 of the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2017 and thus, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the original application. Consequently, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

5. Upon hearing the learned A.G.P. for petitioners and upon perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane (supra) while dealing with the issue in respect of substitution of name.

6. It is worth to mention here that the issue as