Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shivaji Ramrao Pawar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) claiming to be the nominee of a deceased freedom fighter, Dhondiram Tryambak Kale, who died in 1970. Under clause 4 of a government circular dated 4th March 1991, the widow of the freedom fighter, Asrabai, was entitled to nominate a person for employment. Initially, on 11th March 1992, Asrabai nominated Rajendra Govind Wable, the son of the deceased freedom fighter's sister. However, she later decided to cancel that nomination and nominated the petitioner on 29th November 2004. The petitioner approached the authorities for employment based on this nomination, but the State Government, by a communication dated 22nd November 2005, rejected his claim on the ground that the earlier nomination in favour of Rajendra had already been acted upon and the petitioner's nomination was not valid. The petitioner contended that the widow had the right to cancel the earlier nomination and make a fresh nomination, and the government was bound to consider it. The respondents argued that once a nomination is made and acted upon, it cannot be cancelled. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the government circular does not prohibit cancellation of a nomination. The widow, being the beneficiary, had the right to change her nominee. The court found that the government's refusal to consider the fresh nomination was arbitrary and violative of the circular. Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication dated 22nd November 2005, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's nomination for employment in accordance with the circular. The court made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim for employment, but only directing consideration.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Freedom Fighter's Nominee - Employment - Cancellation of Nomination - The widow of a deceased freedom fighter has the right to cancel an earlier nomination and nominate another person for employment under the government circular dated 4th March 1991. The State Government cannot ignore the fresh nomination and must consider it for the purpose of providing employment to the nominee. (Paras 3-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Direction to Consider - Where a government circular confers a benefit on a class of persons, the authority must act in accordance with the circular. Failure to consider a valid nomination amounts to denial of the benefit, and a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the authority to consider the nomination. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government is bound to consider the fresh nomination made by the widow of a deceased freedom fighter after cancellation of an earlier nomination, and whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for employment as a nominee.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication dated 22nd November 2005, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's nomination for employment in accordance with the government circular dated 4th March 1991.
Law Points
- Freedom fighter's widow can cancel earlier nomination and nominate another person
- Government must consider fresh nomination
- Writ of mandamus
