2026:BHC-AS:3313-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10310 OF 2025 Digitally signed by VINA VINA ARVIND ARVIND KHADPE KHADPE Date:

2026.01.22 Smt. Kalpana Subhash Kedar ….Petitioner

20:47:23 +0530 Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents ----

Mr Vinayak R. Kumbhar, Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire i/b Ms. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar, Advocates for Petitioner.

Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, Add. G.P. a/w Ms. Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for State.

----

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2026 P.C. :-

1. Admittedly, the Petitioner and her deceased husband, have three children. The first daughter was born on 05^th November, 2015. A son was born on 15^th July, 2016, and another son was born on 17^th August, 2022. The Petitioner widow seeks compassionate appointment placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment delivered by this Court at Nagpur dated 19^th November, 2015 in Writ Petition No. 1841/2015 (Smt. Chaya Deepak Chahare Vs.

Director of Education Pune and Ors).

2. The learned AGP points out that this issue was referred to the Full Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Ravindra V. Ghuge J.) was a party, in Writ Petition No. 9284 of 2022 (Sunita Dinesh Gaikwad and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and CEO Zilla Parishad, Nanded)

3. He further points out that the Full Bench has considered two different views delivered by two Division Benches of this Court at the Principle seat. One was in the case of Kashabai Sheshrao Wagh Vs. The Zilla Parishad, Nashik and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 7742 of 2014) decided on 03.07.2019 wherein, this court concluded that the GR dated 28^th March, 2001 was ultra vires. The subsequent Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Bhagyashree Pradip Chopade Vs. MIDC & Ors [WP No. 6819/2021] decided on 08^th March, 2022 concluded that the said GR is not ultra vires and no clause of the GR is arbitrary.

4. These Judgments led to the formation of the Full Bench which concluded in paragraph nos. 8 to 19 as under:

"8. We find that the submissions of the learned AGP Shri Karlekar are well placed. The order in Kashabai (supra), more particularly in paragraph 7 reproduced above, clearly indicates that there was no prayer to declare the said condition (clause E) as unconstitutional. However, it is trite that if the parties address the Court on the constitutional validity of any particular clause or if the submissions of the litigating parties strike at the root of a particular clause, the Court may grant an opportunity of hearing to the litigating parties so as to support their respective submissions in favour of and against the validity of a particular clause of the Government Resolution. Ideally, the Court would permit the parties to amend the pleadings and add to the grounds/prayers. In our view, even if this is not so done, the minimum that would be required is that the parties must be granted an opportunity of addressing the Court and the conclusions of the Court must be supported with reasons.

9. In Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India and others, 1994 (2) Mh.L.J. 1669, Full Bench, it was held that when the High Court is confronted with two contrary decisions of the Supreme Court emanating from Benches of co- equal strength, the High Court is not necessarily bound to follow the decision which is later in point of time, but must follow the one which, in it’s view, is better or more accurate in the light of the provisions of law. It was noted in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under:-

“14. It has been pointed out by one of us, while speaking for a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Bholanath v. Madanmohan on the question as to the course to be followed by the High Court when confronted with contrary decisions of the Supreme Court emanating from Benches of co-equal strength, as hereunder :- "..... When contrary decisions of the Supreme Court emanate from Benches of equal strength, the course to be adopted by the High Court is, firstly, to try to re